Nuclear Power

[BOZG]

I'm just wondering if anyone knows any good articles that argue the case for nuclear power but more importantly from a leftish/technocratic perspective?

[ZeroPain]

:rolleyes:

What makes you think that technocrats support nuclear power?

[BOZG]

I never said they homogenously did. Generally, leftists oppose nuclear power but regardless, there are still people who support it for a number of progressive reasons rather than profit based motives and I'm wondering if anyone has any articles written by people like that.

[ZeroPain]

I looked around but could not find what your looking for, sorry.

[Cult of Reason]

I am afraid I do not know of any.

My only real objection to the use of fission as a power source is the fact that Uranium is a non-renewable resource. Other than that, it is definitely better than petroleum.

If anyone could find me a webpage giving the amount of Uranium in the world and how long it will last given current exploitation then I would be very greatful, as it is the primary nuclear fuel at the moment. Obviously, if there is only 20 years worth of Uranium-235 left, or some other similar number, then increasing the use of fission power would be pointless.

[Palmares]

I'm quite familiar with this topic, being an (anarcho) environmentalist activist. Its quite a tricky topic, as in recent times many right-wing elements have begun supporting nuclear energy under the banner of "stopping global warming". Even environmentalists that support nuclear energy would agree that this is a farce, as though they also support the usage of nuclear energy, they by no means wish to use it the same way neo-conservatives wish to.

Basically, what this means is neo-conservatives wish to be quite environmentally ignorant and use nuclear power in the exact same energy conditions as now - with the same level of consumption, and still using other bad energy sources like coal.

Environmentalists for nuclear power instead wish to use it only as a temporary measure (well, some do), as it is the only power source able to take on the level of consumption contemporary capitalist society maintians - and thus is dearly needed in any sort of transition to a more sustainable level of consumption. And on top of that, in this temporary transition, nuclear energy would be used in conjunction with different renewable energy sources, such as the way it is used in various Scandinavian countries, to eventually be completely sustainable.

That's my interpretation anyway.

Given how fucked the planet is, though I hate the idea of nuclear energy, deep down I feel temporarily using nuclear energy may be the only way. However, I could never support it under the current conditions in most capitalist countries.

Anyway, here's an article: Link (http://greenspiritstrategies.blogspot.com/2005/10/environmentalist-revisits-nuclear_17.html)

[red team]

A type of nuclear power that is nearly limitless, sustainable, safe and has few waste products.

ITER (http://www.iter.org/)

[Palmares]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 26 2006, 12:39 PM
A type of nuclear power that is nearly limitless, sustainable, safe and has few waste products.

ITER (http://www.iter.org/)
Do you have more independent information on it? Articles etc?

[Cult of Reason]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 26 2006, 03:39 AM
A type of nuclear power that is nearly limitless, sustainable, safe and has few waste products.

ITER (http://www.iter.org/)
However, it is not working yet, and the most optimistic estimates suggest viable sustained power generation is at least 30 years away. As such, I think it is not really relevant to this discussion.

[apathy maybe]

I don't have any articles, but I'll just give you my opinion instead. I'm sort of like Cthenthar, I'm an environmentalist anarchist (hence the green in my avatar).

The thing about current fission technology is that it is way too dangerous and polluting to be used seriously. Future technology's (such as fusion or that type of power plant that eats anything, can't remember what it is called), are much less polluting and use much less energy to actually power.

Current fission reactors are not of benefit in the fight against global warming as mining and shipping the uranium and waste uses a lot of oil.

Reducing energy consumption and switching to cleaner energy sources are better options.

Reducing the population (through a reduction in population growth rather then killing of billions of people) is one option in reducing demand, though it will be a slow process in the underdeveloped world. In the overdeveloped world we are already doing this, now we have to reduce the amount of energy used per person.


On the topic of Fusion, it has been 30 years away for the last 30 years. But we already have it. There is this big plant on 8 light minutes away that produces more energy then we will ever need.


All your energy comes from one of three sources, solar (nuclear fusion), Luna (gravity effects), or Earth (internal thermal). It is then changed into other forms. But these are the three main places where your energy comes from.

[Cult of Reason]

switching to cleaner energy sources

Not going to happen under Capitalism any time soon.


Reducing energy consumption

Definitely not going to happen under Capitalism any time soon. I also think it likely to happen catastrophically if it comes under Capitalism. Marx's common ruin prediction?


too dangerous

Two accidents in 50 years, only one of which with bad effects, and that was as a result of negligence


polluting

More than petroleum?


mining and shipping the uranium and waste uses a lot of oil.

True, but more than the combination of transporting oil and coal and then burning them, and the mining of coal and drilling for oil?


All your energy comes from one of three sources, solar (nuclear fusion), Luna (gravity effects), or Earth (internal thermal). It is then changed into other forms. But these are the three main places where your energy comes from.

Indeed, but the political will among the Capitalists and their central comittee is not there.

[Janus]

A type of nuclear power that is nearly limitless, sustainable, safe and has few waste products.
Fusion power is a bit more tricky and ITER so far hasn't even reached the building phase yet.

[ZeroPain]

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200603/2...327_253827.html (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200603/27/eng20060327_253827.html)
http://english.people.com.cn/200601/21/eng...121_237208.html (http://english.people.com.cn/200601/21/eng20060121_237208.html)

Found these while looking around.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by Haraldur+--> (Haraldur)Not going to happen under Capitalism any time soon.[/b]

If you read my post, its happened already in Scandinavia, but I do agree that capitalism basically works against it, and thus is linked inot the bad administering of power by most capitalist governments I cannot allow for nuclear power to be used.


Originally posted by Haraldur+--> (Haraldur)Definitely not going to happen under Capitalism any time soon. I also think it likely to happen catastrophically if it comes under Capitalism. Marx's common ruin prediction?[/b]

I doubt any practical radical leftist would disagree with that.


[email protected]
Two accidents in 50 years, only one of which with bad effects, and that was as a result of negligence

This is fair enough, except I think this type of general ability to prevent disasters very much relies on the type of people who are administering the energy source. The Scandinavians have a good track record, but I'm not so sure everyone would be so able/trustworthy.


Haralur
True, but more than the combination of transporting oil and coal and then burning them, and the mining of coal and drilling for oil?

This kinda choice is like choosing between which capitalist to vote for...

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Haraldur+--> (Haraldur)Not going to happen under Capitalism any time soon.[/b] You just have to make it a smart market decision ... Start blowing up polluting power stations and publish the reasons why.


Originally posted by Haraldur+--> (Haraldur)Definitely not going to happen under Capitalism any time soon. I also think it likely to happen catastrophically if it comes under Capitalism. Marx's common ruin prediction?
[/b]Sure it will. The thing about capitalists is they will sell you the rope to hang every other capitalist. They don't care about any other capitalist. So they start selling energy efficient devices and say that they will save you money, they create a demand, make lots of money and lots of people have energy efficient devices and save money on electricity. The only losers are the electricity companies.

This is why you see fluro globes in supermarkets and hybrid cars. There is a market in saving people money.


Originally posted by Haraldur
Two accidents in 50 years, only one of which with bad effects, and that was as a result of negligenceYour facts are wrong. There have been heaps of accidents in (for example) Japan. But the issue of nuclear weapon proliferation is also a danger.


[email protected]
More than petroleum?Sure, would you like a bunch of nuclear waste in your back yard for the next 10000 years? Nuclear power plants also take a long time to build and use a lot of energy in production. (Also see next answer.)


Haraldur
True, but more than the combination of transporting oil and coal and then burning them, and the mining of coal and drilling for oil?OK there is a lot of pollution from coal and oil powered power plants, but notice how I am not promoting these either?

Shipping any large amount of stuff will use fuel, so the solution is to use local stuff.


What is that other sort of power plant? I heard a bit about it recently, but now I can't find infomation about it. Umm....

Maybe it was in this thread, http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...7938&hl=nuclear (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47938&hl=nuclear) (on alternatives to petroleum)(which I recommend you read anyway). It wasn't in this one http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...9312&hl=nuclear (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49312&hl=nuclear) (on nuclear waste).

It was in the first one. Thorium-fuelled nuclear reactors, way to go!

[Cult of Reason]

This kinda choice is like choosing between which capitalist to vote for...

Am I right in assuming that this thread assumes a revolution has not happened yet?


Start blowing up polluting power stations and publish the reasons why.

That is ridiculous. If you do that they will go after you, and then just replace the station (and also helping Capitalism in a way through waste of resources). Also, if you do do it to a sufficient extent that they take notice, then the ordinary people would really start to suffer as prices go astronomical (it is bad enough if you only destroy one). This would, in turn, increase the prices of all products that depend on electrical power, or are facilitated by it, in their production and/or distribution, ie. pretty much everything., This would include the wind turbines, solar panels, waterwheels, turbines etc. that you would want to replace them with.


Sure it will. The thing about capitalists is they will sell you the rope to hang every other capitalist. They don't care about any other capitalist. So they start selling energy efficient devices and say that they will save you money, they create a demand, make lots of money and lots of people have energy efficient devices and save money on electricity. The only losers are the electricity companies.

This is why you see fluro globes in supermarkets and hybrid cars. There is a market in saving people money.


Your facts are wrong. There have been heaps of accidents in (for example) Japan.

Was there any significant release of radioactive material?

Not much of that going on now. Also, those who would potentially lose out are the bigs kids in the playground. Capitalism, is, after all, rule of those who have aquired large amounts of resources and power and such companies would find it in their immediate interests to reduce consumption of such goods, in the short term at least, to ensure that the profits are kept up.


But the issue of nuclear weapon proliferation is also a danger.

I love MAD.


Sure, would you like a bunch of nuclear waste in your back yard for the next 10000 years?

Nice exaggerated use of language, giving the image of radioactive sludge in the back garden, which would probably give a lethal dose. However, since the situation is much less dramatic than what you seem to imply, I would prefer it to being flooded in, or frozen, or starved, or droughted or plain baked.


Nuclear power plants also take a long time to build and use a lot of energy in production. (Also see next answer.)

Yes, but how does its entire life, both in construction life and operating life, compare in fossil fuel use with conventional power plants?


OK there is a lot of pollution from coal and oil powered power plants, but notice how I am not promoting these either?

Indeed, but to me the idea of simply jumping into, or slowly phasing into, use of renewables (well, comparitive renewables) directly, rather than through an intermediate stage with fission plants, seems not to be plausible without revolution, and, as far as I am concerned, this topic should consider worst case scenario, where revolution has not occured.


Shipping any large amount of stuff will use fuel, so the solution is to use local stuff.

That, I think, is not absolutely applicable in all cases. Due to the fact I do not have the document I found this in to hand (sorry), I do not remember exactly what element it was (tungsten?), but, in the USA, there is (or at least, there was, I do not know about now) a lot of iron production, but it necessated <insert substance here> for the mechanised process, and the closest large reserves of that substance are in Canada.

Incoherent, I know, but I hope you understand what I am trying to say, even if it was a bit off topic.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 01:39 AM
I am afraid I do not know of any.

My only real objection to the use of fission as a power source is the fact that Uranium is a non-renewable resource. Other than that, it is definitely better than petroleum.

If anyone could find me a webpage giving the amount of Uranium in the world and how long it will last given current exploitation then I would be very greatful, as it is the primary nuclear fuel at the moment. Obviously, if there is only 20 years worth of Uranium-235 left, or some other similar number, then increasing the use of fission power would be pointless.
i think its 50

and thats at the current rate of nuclear energy production


plus, the waste is dangerous for what? thousands of years?

fuck nuclear energy


also, the energy needed to extract the uranium or something is huge as well

[TheGreatOne]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+Aug 27 2006, 02:55 PM--> (NewKindOfSoldier @ Aug 27 2006, 02:55 PM)
[email protected] 26 2006, 01:39 AM
I am afraid I do not know of any.

My only real objection to the use of fission as a power source is the fact that Uranium is a non-renewable resource. Other than that, it is definitely better than petroleum.

If anyone could find me a webpage giving the amount of Uranium in the world and how long it will last given current exploitation then I would be very greatful, as it is the primary nuclear fuel at the moment. Obviously, if there is only 20 years worth of Uranium-235 left, or some other similar number, then increasing the use of fission power would be pointless.
i think its 50

and thats at the current rate of nuclear energy production


plus, the waste is dangerous for what? thousands of years?

fuck nuclear energy


also, the energy needed to extract the uranium or something is huge as well [/b]
Not fuck nuclear energy, fuck nuclear fission energy. Fusion produces no harmful waste products and we aren&#39;t exactly short on our hydrogen supply.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

This new(ish) movement among environmentalists to promote de-centralized and alternative fuel sources for electricty production is bullshit. Windmills, solar panels, and biodiesel will never be able to compete with the potential of nuclear plants. They&#39;re not that dangerous. The Soviets fucked up their country with radiation and radioactive waste, but look at them now&#33; They&#39;re doing okay. The dangers of nuclear radiation are tremendously overplayed.

[LuXe]

If there are better power-sources than nuclear power available. This should DEFINETLY be used. Nuclear power has been made "frightning" by the media over time. It doesnt deserve this badge. But it can get messy, and thats why i mean that you should stay away from it, but avoid it only if better options are available. Here in Norway, water come pouring down from the mountains. We use the power from this water to make electricity. You can also use different power sorces. Wind, waves and fusion can be considered more closely in the future.

Summary; Radioactivity is overplayed, but I prefer to stick with safer power-sorces. (If available)

[Palmares]

Originally posted by Haraldur+--> (Haraldur)Am I right in assuming that this thread assumes a revolution has not happened yet?[/b]

That&#39;s beside the point. What you&#39;re saying in essence (by saying the revolution hasn&#39;t happened yet and endorsing a choice between two bad choices) is that it is legitimate as radical leftists to make choices that do not hold up in revolutionary "ethics".

To be reformist.

But as I said before, I am not totally against nuclear power, if its used appropriately, but most governments outside of Scandinavia do not have my confidence on this. Read my previous posts to understand this better.

Basically, I&#39;m not going to sellout on the environment.


Originally posted by [email protected]
This new(ish) movement among environmentalists to promote de-centralized and alternative fuel sources for electricty production is bullshit. Windmills, solar panels, and biodiesel will never be able to compete with the potential of nuclear plants. They&#39;re not that dangerous. The Soviets fucked up their country with radiation and radioactive waste, but look at them now&#33; They&#39;re doing okay. The dangers of nuclear radiation are tremendously overplayed.

Okay, to help with answering both what I&#39;ve quoted, I&#39;ll quote myself:


Cthenthar
... neo-conservatives wish to be quite environmentally ignorant and use nuclear power in the exact same energy conditions as now - with the same level of consumption, and still using other bad energy sources like coal.

Environmentalists for nuclear power instead wish to use it only as a temporary measure (well, some do), as it is the only power source able to take on the level of consumption contemporary capitalist society maintians - and thus is dearly needed in any sort of transition to a more sustainable level of consumption. And on top of that, in this temporary transition, nuclear energy would be used in conjunction with different renewable energy sources, such as the way it is used in various Scandinavian countries, to eventually be completely sustainable.

Indeed, nuclear energy isn&#39;t nearly as dangerous as the liberal media portray it, however, that isn&#39;t to say the potential isn&#39;t there - but that&#39;s not my problem.

Nuclear energy works well in the places it does currently for one because very few places rely on it - and thus, its not as unsustainable as it would be if it was more systematically used worldwide. The waste produced by nuclear energy, the spend rods, last for thousands of years, and makes the usage of nuclear energy very unsustanable.

We can&#39;t keep burying the spent rods forever.

So basically, nuclear power needs to be well adminstered (however that is achieved...), used in conjunction with renewable energy, and used temporarily whilst making the transition to full renewable energy well reducing energy consumption.

I don&#39;t like my chances... i can dream though :P

[Palmares]

Originally posted by apathy maybe
Sure it will. The thing about capitalists is they will sell you the rope to hang every other capitalist. They don&#39;t care about any other capitalist. So they start selling energy efficient devices and say that they will save you money, they create a demand, make lots of money and lots of people have energy efficient devices and save money on electricity. The only losers are the electricity companies.

This is why you see fluro globes in supermarkets and hybrid cars. There is a market in saving people money.

Green capitalism is stretching it my friend.

The tug between the forces of capital make it difficult for this to be easily achieved aswell.

Do you know of any green capitalist campaigns (lack of a better term) that have taken systematic hold of the market?

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Cthenthar+Aug 28 2006, 11:55 AM--> (Cthenthar @ Aug 28 2006, 11:55 AM)
apathy maybe
Sure it will. The thing about capitalists is they will sell you the rope to hang every other capitalist. They don&#39;t care about any other capitalist. So they start selling energy efficient devices and say that they will save you money, they create a demand, make lots of money and lots of people have energy efficient devices and save money on electricity. The only losers are the electricity companies.

This is why you see fluro globes in supermarkets and hybrid cars. There is a market in saving people money.

Green capitalism is stretching it my friend.

The tug between the forces of capital make it difficult for this to be easily achieved aswell.

Do you know of any green capitalist campaigns (lack of a better term) that have taken systematic hold of the market? [/b]
Bah. I never said green capitalism. I think that it could never work, the contradictions would be too great (oh shit, I&#39;m starting to talk like a Marxist&#33;).

Capitalists will happily make a profit from selling anything. Some of them happen to do it by selling enviromentally friendly products. Some do it by selling organics.

They see a market, and they attempt to profit from it, and in some cases make an enormous amount of money because hippies are willing to pay for the good stuff.

[Palmares]

How is that not green capitalism?

[apathy maybe]

Because green capitalism attempts to have capitalism integrate into the environment sustainably. Because capitalism requires infinite growth to survive, it obviously isn&#39;t sustainable. Thus green capitalism is a contradiction in terms.

What I am talking about is simply capitalism, trying to make a quick buck. Those fluro light bulbs could have been produced using the most polluting system around for all the capitalist producing them cares. A green capitalist would try and not be polluting, thus in the present society probably go bankrupt.

Exploiting a market with &#39;green&#39; products, does not a green capitalist make.

(Polly want a split thread?)

[Palmares]

The term green capitalism isn&#39;t my terminology, and I know its not neccessarily politically correct, but it is convenient.

So if i don&#39;t use the term, you are endorsing capitalism?

[apathy maybe]

Huh? :unsure: I&#39;m not endorsing capitalism. I was just correcting what I thought of as your misuse of the term "green capitalism" which I understand in the specific way I&#39;ve mentioned.

You are of course welcome to use the term, but only correctly :P

[Palmares]

This is your endorsement:


Originally posted by apathy maybe+--> (apathy maybe)Sure it will. The thing about capitalists is they will sell you the rope to hang every other capitalist. They don&#39;t care about any other capitalist. So they start selling energy efficient devices and say that they will save you money, they create a demand, make lots of money and lots of people have energy efficient devices and save money on electricity. The only losers are the electricity companies.

This is why you see fluro globes in supermarkets and hybrid cars. There is a market in saving people money.[/b]


Originally posted by apathy [email protected]
You are of course welcome to use the term, but only correctly

But you said:


apathy maybe
... green capitalism is a contradiction in terms.

[apathy maybe]

I did use the term correctly. It is a contradiction. Capitalism can never be sustainable or green.

I was not endorsing capitalism, just pointing out how it works, it sees a market and attempts to fill it. Often that market is for "green" products, often these products cost other capitalists money because there is less of a demand for such things as electricity.

Originally I was saying that sure it is possible, under capitalism, to switch to cleaner sources of electricity. It most definitely wasn&#39;t an endorsement.

[Vargha Poralli]

Not fuck nuclear energy, fuck nuclear fission energy. Fusion produces no harmful waste products and we aren&#39;t exactly short on our hydrogen supply


i think you dont know how exactly fusion works &#33; it is true that it doesnt produces harmfull wates and we are not short on hydrogen supplies but it needs extreme high temperatures. it is fusion that is taking place in sun.to produce such high temperatures like sun in earth is only thru fission reaction.

[TheGreaterOne]

i&#39;m a physics major. i know pretty well how nuclear fusion works. i&#39;m aware that you need to start the reaction with nuclear fission, but once the reaction has started, no more fission is necesary to keep the reaction going.

[Vargha Poralli]

sorry didnt know abt that.can u elaborate more technically about that ? just curios like how much area will be required, its economic feasiblity etc ?

[Comrade-Z]

Using breeder reactors, we can produce enough material to run our society on fission power for thousands, possibly millions of years. And that&#39;s just counting nuclear fission.

Nuclear fusion is even better, and it is making steady progress. There have been trial runs that have produced sustained outputs of energy greater than inputs. The new ITER plant hopes to nail that down and figure out ways to extend it to a commercial scale. Then, after ITER, the next generation of projects would be commercially viable.

I think a joint strategy of gradual population reduction (already occuring, to some extent), energy efficiency and smart, non-hindering conservation, solar, wind, fission, and research into fusion, and, if absolutely needed in a pinch, hydrogenated coal into oil, that&#39;s the solution.

[Tommy-K]

Nuclear power is not the way forward. Yeh its better than burning fossil fuels, a lot better, but unless we can dispose of nuclear waste properly, its just gonna cause more problems. They worked out that if they covered this one square of the Northern African Desert (that&#39;s not being used for anything at all, obviously) with solar pannels it would provide enough electricity for the whole world. Interesting thought.

[Goatse]

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=30508&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=30508&hl=)

Long live Noxion.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Tommy&#045;[email protected] 30 2006, 09:31 AM
Nuclear power is not the way forward. Yeh its better than burning fossil fuels, a lot better, but unless we can dispose of nuclear waste properly, its just gonna cause more problems. They worked out that if they covered this one square of the Northern African Desert (that&#39;s not being used for anything at all, obviously) with solar pannels it would provide enough electricity for the whole world. Interesting thought.
what square is this?

i have long since been under the impression that we haven&#39;t been able to reproduce nuclear fusion

[red team]

i have long since been under the impression that we haven&#39;t been able to reproduce nuclear fusion

We cannot artificially reproduce nuclear fusion at the present moment, but is that our only source of nuclear fusion?

Once we run out of oil then out tech. civilization is doomed so we might as well lay down and die. Fossil fuel is the only source of high energy fuel we can rely on. Peak oil would mean a drastic decline in available energy and the end of our present industrial civilization as we know it. Doomsday is just a few years away. etc. etc...

You&#39;ve been listening to too much oil company propaganda if you&#39;re blind enough to swallow that crap. Doomsday is not near and the collapse of civilization from energy shortages and war over dwindling resources is not inevitable.

Here&#39;s another way to exploit solar energy (natural fusion power from the sun). People when they think of solar energy only think of solar panels as it directly absorbs sunlight and turn that into energy, but that&#39;s not the only source of solar energy.

If you think about it all the heat the Earth gives off is solar energy because otherwise it would be a cold frozen rock like Pluto. There&#39;s not enough mass for the Earth by itself to account for all the heat it generates including the hot interior of the Earth as we can witness with volcanos and geisers.

So how long will the Earth remain hot including the hot interior of the Earth? Answer: for as long as the lifetime of the Sun (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=389) about 5 billion years more since the Sun have existed for 4.5 billion years since the beginning of our solar system. So how do make use of the heat given off the Earth which is a result of the Sun shining on it? Dig a deep enough hole and explode an atomic bomb to make a cavern to hold water that boils into an artificial "geiser" up to the surface. Swords into ploughshares indeed, eh? :D

Tap the geiser with a steam turbine connected to an electric generator and you&#39;ve got a free present from the heat of the Earth. I guess Santa Claus does exists ;) Nah, it was just human curiosity and being skeptical of all the corporate media propaganda pumped out by the same corporations that want you to think you are dependent on them because they want your money.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by RedZeppelin+Aug 30 2006, 10:49 PM--> (RedZeppelin &#064; Aug 30 2006, 10:49 PM)
Tommy&#045;[email protected] 30 2006, 09:31 AM
Nuclear power is not the way forward. Yeh its better than burning fossil fuels, a lot better, but unless we can dispose of nuclear waste properly, its just gonna cause more problems. They worked out that if they covered this one square of the Northern African Desert (that&#39;s not being used for anything at all, obviously) with solar pannels it would provide enough electricity for the whole world. Interesting thought.
what square is this? [/b]
I dunno. It&#39;s not real. It was just an idea. It&#39;s a tiny percentage of desert that, if covered with solar panels, would provide enough electricity for the whole world. I read it in the Big Issue, they had a big thing in there on nuclear power about a month ago.

EDIT: They had a diagram of just how small a percentage of desert this square would actually take up.

[Comrade-Z]

Originally posted by Tommy&#045;K+Sep 1 2006, 09:28 AM--> (Tommy-K @ Sep 1 2006, 09:28 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 10:49 PM

Tommy&#045;[email protected] 30 2006, 09:31 AM
Nuclear power is not the way forward. Yeh its better than burning fossil fuels, a lot better, but unless we can dispose of nuclear waste properly, its just gonna cause more problems. They worked out that if they covered this one square of the Northern African Desert (that&#39;s not being used for anything at all, obviously) with solar pannels it would provide enough electricity for the whole world. Interesting thought.
what square is this?
I dunno. It&#39;s not real. It was just an idea. It&#39;s a tiny percentage of desert that, if covered with solar panels, would provide enough electricity for the whole world. I read it in the Big Issue, they had a big thing in there on nuclear power about a month ago.

EDIT: They had a diagram of just how small a percentage of desert this square would actually take up. [/b]
Yeah, I remember reading something like that about the U.S. as well, something like how if we covered every square inch of Wyoming in solar panels (or an equivalent area), then we could power all of North America.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Tommy&#045;K+Sep 1 2006, 05:28 AM--> (Tommy-K @ Sep 1 2006, 05:28 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 10:49 PM

Tommy&#045;[email protected] 30 2006, 09:31 AM
Nuclear power is not the way forward. Yeh its better than burning fossil fuels, a lot better, but unless we can dispose of nuclear waste properly, its just gonna cause more problems. They worked out that if they covered this one square of the Northern African Desert (that&#39;s not being used for anything at all, obviously) with solar pannels it would provide enough electricity for the whole world. Interesting thought.
what square is this?
I dunno. It&#39;s not real. It was just an idea. It&#39;s a tiny percentage of desert that, if covered with solar panels, would provide enough electricity for the whole world. I read it in the Big Issue, they had a big thing in there on nuclear power about a month ago.

EDIT: They had a diagram of just how small a percentage of desert this square would actually take up. [/b]
This is very unrealistic. Not only would a project such as that be massive, it would be impractical. How on earth are you going to make a grid out of the entire world with one power source? Not to mention that is extremely dangerous given our dependency on electricity. What happens at night time, does power just shut off?

[red team]

Well, there are these things called batteries and you can charge them up to store...

electricity. :lol:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z+Sep 1 2006, 11:49 AM--> (Comrade-Z @ Sep 1 2006, 11:49 AM)
Originally posted by Tommy&#045;[email protected] 1 2006, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 10:49 PM

Tommy&#045;[email protected] 30 2006, 09:31 AM
Nuclear power is not the way forward. Yeh its better than burning fossil fuels, a lot better, but unless we can dispose of nuclear waste properly, its just gonna cause more problems. They worked out that if they covered this one square of the Northern African Desert (that&#39;s not being used for anything at all, obviously) with solar pannels it would provide enough electricity for the whole world. Interesting thought.
what square is this?
I dunno. It&#39;s not real. It was just an idea. It&#39;s a tiny percentage of desert that, if covered with solar panels, would provide enough electricity for the whole world. I read it in the Big Issue, they had a big thing in there on nuclear power about a month ago.

EDIT: They had a diagram of just how small a percentage of desert this square would actually take up.
Yeah, I remember reading something like that about the U.S. as well, something like how if we covered every square inch of Wyoming in solar panels (or an equivalent area), then we could power all of North America. [/b]
that&#39;s ridiculously impossible
so is any equivalent project

burning manatee blubber sounds more reasonable than covering over 250,000 sq km with solar panels

that&#39;s just fucking ludicrous

and it reveals the tremendously ineficient nature of solar power
at least in large scale

[red team]

GEOTHERMAL POWER

What I basically proposed in my last post

The United States alone produces 2700 megawatts of electricity from geothermal energy, electricity comparable to burning sixty million barrels of oil each year.

Thousands more megawatts of power than are currently being produced could be developed from already-identified hydrothermal resources. With improvements in technology, much more power will become available. Usable geothermal resources will not be limited to the "shallow" hydrothermal reservoirs at the crustal plate boundaries. Much of the world is underlain (3-6 miles down), by hot dry rock - no water, but lots of heat. Scientists in the U.S.A., Japan, England, France, Germany and Belgium have experimented with piping water into this deep hot rock to create more hydrothermal resources for use in geothermal power plants. As drilling technology improves, allowing us to drill much deeper, geothermal energy from hot dry rock could be available anywhere. At such time, we will be able to tap the true potential of the enormous heat resources of the earth&#39;s crust.

Geothermal Education Office (http://geothermal.marin.org/pwrheat.html)

[red team]

Since the 1940s the UK nuclear power project has built up 102 tonnes of plutonium, 153,000 tonnes of uranium, 10,000 cubic metres of spent fuel, 2,000 cubic metres of high-level waste and 350,000 cubic metres of intermediate-level waste. Plutonium is highly toxic and just one particle of it can cause fatal lung-cancer. It takes 24,000 years for a given amount of plutonium to decay by half and to this day no safe way has yet been devised to dispose of it.


It is estimated that in order to bury just the plutonium produced in an underground repository with any degree of safety would take 30 to 40 years to complete.

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

So it takes 24,000 years just for radioactive Plutonium to decay in half. Is that safe? <_<

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 5 2006, 04:47 AM

Since the 1940s the UK nuclear power project has built up 102 tonnes of plutonium, 153,000 tonnes of uranium, 10,000 cubic metres of spent fuel, 2,000 cubic metres of high-level waste and 350,000 cubic metres of intermediate-level waste. Plutonium is highly toxic and just one particle of it can cause fatal lung-cancer. It takes 24,000 years for a given amount of plutonium to decay by half and to this day no safe way has yet been devised to dispose of it.


It is estimated that in order to bury just the plutonium produced in an underground repository with any degree of safety would take 30 to 40 years to complete.

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

So it takes 24,000 years just for radioactive Plutonium to decay in half. Is that safe? <_<
That&#39;s the point. We can only start to think about using nuclear power when we have a safe means of waste storage, otherwise the waste will leak and pollute the environment a hell of a lot more than burning fossil fuels. Remember Chernobyll? There are still farms in England that can&#39;t start farming again because the soil is STILL far too radioactive, and the disaster was 20 years ago. That&#39;s an idea of the catastrophic effects nuclear waste will have if we don&#39;t dispose of it properly.

[The Masque of the Red Death]

Wow i came into this one wayyyyy to late to catch up.. considering i read the first page then skipped over the reast I do hope you forgive me if i start repeating anyone else.

Nuclear Fision and Fusion...well you certainy jumped into the bandwagon, this debates be raging for years. Im no expert but I know a good bit about both im planning on becoming a Nuclear Physicist so natually i am pro-nuc power.

Fission and Fusion, can for all purposes be considered unlimited fuel. (not renewable, but unlimited). As (i think) was mentioned before breeders and fast breeders produce more fissile material than was placed into it, and with natural uranium deposits can operate for a good 200k years. Although this sounds great, the more economical thermal reactor are more common now, but japan are investing into fast breeders largely.

The thing about oil is that there are plenty of things you could do woth it better than burn it..plastics and oils are made from it, and are just as necessary in todays society as energy so we should save the oil for them, not burning.