Nuclear Power - for or against?

[Sentinel]

I have started this new poll to see how the current Revleft membership views the issue of Nuclear Power. See the previous poll (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=30508), which went on from November 17, 2004 until today, and ended 77-33 (70%-30%) in favor of the pro-nuclear power sentiment. Totally 110 members voted.

Feel free to continue any discussions from that thread in this new one. And of course, vote and tell us the reasons behind your conviction!

My personal opinion:

I am pro nuclear power which I consider to be the best alternative at the moment. Although I recognise that there are certain risks and longterm problems with it, I think there are more positive aspects, compared to other current forms of energy production -- organic fuels are malicious towards the environment, hydroplants destroy river eco systems etc.

Solar and wind power should be increasingly researched on in order to see to which degree they could replace nuclear power in the future. Nuclear fusion research is also very promising .

[Jazzratt]

I'm strongly for it, for the reasons Sentinel outlined. If it is introduced worldwide then I also think alternatives should be closley researched - but it is not the monster that several people (even leftists, to my great shock) make it out to be.

[Marukusu]

As long as we can get rid of the nuclear waste safely without endangering the envoirment and/or other human beings, I see no problem whatsoever with nuclear power.

[Vyru]

Sorry guys, gonna have to disagree with you on this one. We can create eco fuels for energy pretty easily (Methane, etc), As well as clean sources such as wind power and water mills and solar. And in this day and age, I don't feel too comfortable living about 20 miles away from one of England's major reactors. I don't feel like going boom. ¬_¬

[Cult of Reason]

I voted in favour of nuclear power.

Vyru: What is the capacity to produce methane? I assume it would be from landfill and sewage, mostly (not fossil fuel methane). I am not sure about the scale, but there are some power stations that use methane tapped from landfill sites in the west of the USA. It would be good if you could provide some sources for how much of the demand could be taken by methane. I admit that I am pessimistic, but I am interested all the same.

[loveme4whoiam]

I would be in favour of it - any alternative to oil is a good thing. I don't think it should be the only alternative though - an over-reliance on any one energy source would not be a good thing for a country.

[Pirate Utopian]

i voted in favor of nuclear power, right now it's the cleanest thing around

[Delirium]

i voted no, but i think that in the future it could be a good alternative with better technology and design. If we can safely store the waste then i would have no problem with it. Uranium is a finite resource anyways.

[Severian]

Is this a yes-or-no issue? I voted yes in the sense I'm not for an absolute, automatic no-nukes stance.


Sorry guys, gonna have to disagree with you on this one. We can create eco fuels for energy pretty easily (Methane, etc), As well as clean sources such as wind power and water mills and solar.

No, not in quantity. Not to meet current power needs - let alone the billions who want electric lightning now, thank you.

Maybe new techniques can be developed at some point, to make solar practical on a large scale, or some kind of coal gasification which can prevent CO2 release.

Research is very much needed - but I don't see much point in the subsidies for use of the current, impractical technologies. I think those are really more about doing something which seems green than really solving any problem.

But currently the options are limited. Well, there's one non-polluting, non-radioactive way of generating large amounts of power - hydro. But there are limits to where and how much that can produce, too.

[piet11111]

well im definitly for nuclear power.

but just for the time we need to develop another source of energy that is cleaner and hopefully more efficient.

[MrDoom]

Pro-nuclear; though something less hazardous, more efficient, and renewable should quickly replace it as soon as possible.

[Raisa]

This poll sucks.
I am for everyone having nuclear power but the US of fucking A because they are the only ones who had to be stupid and blow someone up with it.

United States, you have lost your nuclear privleges, now pay your electrec bill do not pass go or collect 200 dollars.

[Vargha Poralli]

Yes here for the time being . I cannot find another effective alternative so yes.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Some interesting facts I learned from a friend:
- Hydroelectricity has killed more people in the past than nuclear power.
- If a modern nuclear power plant were to make every effort possible to ensure the proper disposal of its waste, it could bring annual waste produced down to 3 metres cubed, the radioactivity of which would decrease 80% in the first four years.
- In order for wind farms alone to keep up with power output today, they would have to cover 12% of the Earth's total surface area.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am all for the responsible implementation of nuclear power. It's easy to be against nuclear power under the capitalist system due to the principle of profit before performance, effeciency and safety.

[Sentinel]

NoXion, nice to see a post by you, it was a while ago. Welcome back! :)

And I do agree, the entire reactionary anti-tech approach is as popular as it is because people see the capitalists using technology irresponsibly and fail to think any further.. It's sad, really. :(

Because while in the hands of egoistic profiteers the technology we today possess indeed is something dangerous, there is no reason whatsoever to conclude that this would be the case, was it contrrolled by a sane society..

[Free Left]

I think Nuclear would be a good solution until we move onto something more sustainable. Anyway, supplies of "dense" uranium are running out.

Fusion, hopefully, will come in time.

[Aurora]

We cant trust capitalism with nuclear power,thats for sure.

[Cryotank Screams]

I'm pro-nuclear power, as long as it's regulated and closely watched, to ensure safety for it's workers and staff, the general public, and for waste managment.

Seems like a promising field.

[Enragé]

against

1. its dangerous
2. its not a solution since the uranium reserves are depleting as it is, so if we were to focus everything on nuclear energy we're fucked in no time anyway. Also, because uranium reserves are depleting, we are going to have to use uranium of a lesser quality, which takes more energy to enrich --> pollution

correct me if im wrong
im not an expert by any means

[Chris Hiv_E_]

I believe nuclear power does more harm to the earth then good. And there are many ways to obtain energy without it, and surely many more yet to be discovered.

[Fawkes]

I'm very down the middle on this issue just because of the fact that I know very little about it. I do, however, lean more in the direction of pro-nuclear energy because of most of the reasons that Sentinel pointed out.

[razboz]

Theres not much to add really, except that i think that in the immediate future it would be irresponsible not to use nuclear anergy. Using Oil is killing the planet. I realised it this winter when we had the hottest temperatures ever for this season. We could switch all our energy production to nuclear, while we develop sustainable sources of energy. Without sustainability we are doomed to burning our fancy furniture and supercomputers for heat and light.

To those who say that nuclear energy is killing our planet i think it does do harm, but the harm it does is more spectacular and less actual damage than with carbohydrate form of energy.

[Janus]

its not a solution since the uranium reserves are depleting as it is, so if we were to focus everything on nuclear energy we're fucked in no time anyway. Also, because uranium reserves are depleting, we are going to have to use uranium of a lesser quality, which takes more energy to enrich --> pollution
We have plentiful uranium reserves but we can produce more with breeder reactors. However, we should focus on reprocessing so as to separate the usable uranium and plutonium from the actual radioactive waste i.e. fission products.


And there are many ways to obtain energy without it, and surely many more yet to be discovered.
None of which are economically viable or practical at this point.

[Hate Is Art]

I'm unsure about Nuclear Power, Poll needs an abstain vote. I think it's a good short term plan, I just shudder at the the thought of something going horribly wrong (which it could) but the alternatives look so unfeasible that I think it's maybe a reasonable risk to put up with. I'd be happy to see more Nuclear Power used right now, to wean us off Fossil Fuels, as long as developments are being made in other lines of non-polluting fuels.

[Tarik]

i'm against nuclear, but i know that it's probably one of alternative energy to avoid CO2 reject in the atmosphere.
But I think it's very egoist to let to our children toxic elements that will be dangerous during million years.

[Jude]

I am definitely FOR nuclear power, at least until another energy source is made practicle.

[Tarik]

But Uranium is a fossile source of energy.If China will continue to developpe her nuclear program.The whole part of Uranium will be used by China.
So the nuclear is a source of energy which will be used for 100 years, not much.And some countries will be prived of this energy.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 01:16 pm
But Uranium is a fossile source of energy.
It's nonrenewable, yes, but it isn't fossil - unlike oil & coal it wasn't made from the crushed and decomposing remains of prehistoric creatures. Just thought you should know.

[Coggeh]

yes or no for nuclear power is like choosing between the lesser evil ... how can i put it ... the tories and ... the lib dems ? ... or maybe the democrats nd the republicans as such ... theirs always an alternative , don't trap yourself to a notion that nuclear power is the only way out of this crisis we face , wind,sun and water are the solution also a cut down on needless waste ... i hear their packaging apples now .. wtf (O_o)

[Janus]

But Uranium is a fossile source of energy.If China will continue to developpe her nuclear program.The whole part of Uranium will be used by China.
There are ways to make fissile material which is done in breeder plants/reactors.


If the reactor design is much more economical of neutrons, enough U-238 can be converted to plutonium so that after a fuel cycle there is more fissionable material than there was in the original fuel rods in the reactor. Such a design is called a breeder reactor. Breeder reactors essentially use U-238 as fuel, and there is 140 times as much of it as there is U-235. The billion year estimates for fuel resources depend on breeder reactors. The French built two of them, the U.S. has a small one, the British built one, the Russians built one and the Japanese are building one.

[Kia]

With the current situation with fossils fuels and the ever increasing need for energy in our world I would have to say I am for it. It should only be used however as an alternative as we figure out better ways to use renewable energy (wind, hydro, thermo, bio, etc....) and design more effect way of gaining more energy.
I do agree that nuclear power is unsafe but generally that isn't a worry. Chernobyl for instance was using extremely unstable reactors with very few safety precautions in place...a repeat of that with todays current technology is much less likely. However, radioactive waste is a problem. Either we do need to work on finding better ways of safely storing this stuff and minimalizing how much of it is created.

The end for the world's energy problem does not lie in Nuclear plants but in renewable power.


Wikipedia info if anyone is interested:
Wikipedia: Nuclear power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Power#Current_technology)


Also they are working on trying to build a fusion reactor now:
ITER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER)

[Janus]

I do agree that nuclear power is unsafe but generally that isn't a worry.
There are risks with just about any type of energy source out there. Nuclear power can definitely be unsafe if precautions aren't taken and guidelines aren't met.

That's exactly what happened at Chernobyl in '86. Not only was the graphite moderated reactor design bad (which is why the US can't have a Chernobyl) but it was also because of poor operating that the disaster actually occured. The operators took out the safety systems in order to conduct an experiment and by the time the reactor went unstable it was too late to stop it.

[Tarik]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+February 04, 2007 02:50 pm--> (Jazzratt @ February 04, 2007 02:50 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2007 01:16 pm
But Uranium is a fossile source of energy.
It's nonrenewable, yes, but it isn't fossil - unlike oil & coal it wasn't made from the crushed and decomposing remains of prehistoric creatures. Just thought you should know. [/b]
Sorry I didin't know the correct term in english.Thank you.
But if I'm against the nuclear fission that product Pu, I, U, Ne and other dangerous elements that we don't actually know where we'll put them.
I hope that the nuclear fusion will be used one day, that is less dangerous and that has a capacity of production which is clearly higher.
And the experimental reactor ITER (built like the russian tokamak) which is in France is the first experimental reactor which will delivred useful energy.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Tarik+February 08, 2007 12:06 pm--> (Tarik @ February 08, 2007 12:06 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 02:50 pm

[email protected] 04, 2007 01:16 pm
But Uranium is a fossile source of energy.
It's nonrenewable, yes, but it isn't fossil - unlike oil & coal it wasn't made from the crushed and decomposing remains of prehistoric creatures. Just thought you should know.
Sorry I didin't know the correct term in english.Thank you. [/b]
It's cool.


But if I'm against the nuclear fission that product Pu, I, U, Ne and other dangerous elements that we don't actually know where we'll put them. Massive lead containers seems to be favourite, some suggest chucking it into the infinite reaches.

I hope that the nuclear fusion will be used one day, that is less dangerous and that has a capacity of production which is clearly higher. We all hope for fusion to be used, but it's simply theoretical at the moment

[Fawkes]

some suggest chucking it into the infinite reaches.
As in space? Haven't we yet to design a safe way to do that though?

[Janus]

As in space? Haven't we yet to design a safe way to do that though?
No, the consequences of a failure would be pretty bad. I think what Jazzrat meant by that was placing the waste in a subduction zone so that it would be carried into the mantle.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 10:23 pm

As in space? Haven't we yet to design a safe way to do that though?
No, the consequences of a failure would be pretty bad. I think what Jazzrat meant by that was placing the waste in a subduction zone so that it would be carried into the mantle.
Ahye, I suppose I should not use flowery language in this forum again :lol:

[Janus]

I wouldn't really call that flowery just somewhat ambiguous scientifically speaking.

[Fawkes]

I feel stupid :unsure: .

[Nathan_Morrison]

The poll needs a vote fro if yuo are unsure about nuclear power, myself i view nuclear power as great for short term but it is no way a good thing for the long term and the risk of human life from a meltdown. I voted yes as long as we could dispose of the nuclear waste without damaging the enviroment, or damaging the health of humans nearby.

[Janus]

I feel stupid
Check out the Wikipedia articles or check out nuclear power threads from my buddies here (there are a few nuclear engineers): www.physicsforums.com (http://www.physicsforums.com)


and the risk of human life from a meltdown
The newer designs are focused on preventing such things from happening.

[Eleutherios]

I am definitely for nuclear power. Of course wind and solar power should not be overlooked, and we may very well master fusion power this century too. But for the time being, nuclear power is a relatively low-risk, low-pollution, low-cost and high-power form of energy production.

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 07:53 pm

I feel stupid
Check out the Wikipedia articles or check out nuclear power threads from my buddies here (there are a few nuclear engineers): www.physicsforums.com (http://www.physicsforums.com)


and the risk of human life from a meltdown
The newer designs are focused on preventing such things from happening.
The odd thing is, my grandpa was a nuclear physicist and worked on the Manhattan Project, so you'd think I'd have the type of mind for these types of things.

[Janus]

Well, as far as sons go, that is usually the case (though there are a few exceptions like in Planck's case) but it's not the same with other familial relations.

[Fawkes]

:(

[Bremsstrahlung]

Im a pro-nuclear powerist. I feel its our best bet and getting a cheap long term fuel, which we really need.
Sure generation 1 and 2 power plants(the origional designs) are not the safest, and im not proposing we use them. Generation 3 and 3b are even not the best investment, waiting for generation 4 (current research) to be built into working plants is where the future lyes. And using more advanced processing methods can lead to a plant where..
a)98% or used fuel can be made into new fuel.
b)produces 2 meters cubed of waste.
c) The fuel is abundant, and can be infinit with breeder technology.
d) releases no CO2 in the power generation stage.

In contrast to fossil fuels which release millions of tonnes of pollutants a year, and to which the fuel supplies is by no ways certain.

In terms of danger, irrellevent. Nuclear power plants have failsafes..to go wrong something wrong has to be done my man, or the design has to be flawed. Both problems are removed using generation 4 power plants with numerous failsaves not to mention some being inheriently safe.. No more dangerous than Hydropower, and certainly driving.

[RASHskins]

Nuclear power is an amazing source of energy. if the right precautions are taken it is not dangerous and has an extremely high yield energy rate. It has almsot no pollution. And for the bit about running out of materials for it in the future we will probably be able to transform elements into different elements so it is the future of energy. That last bit is just a bit of science fiction but i have no doubt we will discover how to do it.

[Bremsstrahlung]

Although maybe we will, its a bit far fetched to say anything about it! And chances are if we develpo that, we'll be using a completely different form of nuclear technology.

But even if we dont, through clever reprocessing and breeder technology we can have enough easily obtainable fuel for well over 10 billion years.. which can be classified as sustainable.

[RASHskins]

Don't forget space travel too man we can extract materials from other planets so really there is no way of running out.

[yippie666]

anti-matter anyone (fyi its a real thing not just something dan brown made up....and the prton acc is real too...tho i dont think weve goten any anti matter yet....)

[Qwerty Dvorak]

We have indeed gotten anti-matter as far as I know, but only in extremely small quantities, and if I'm not mistaken we need incredibly high-energy particle collisions to generate it. In fact, I thought anti-matter was created by converting energy to mass in the first place? And the collisions that do this don't even convert all of the energy involved into mass, so it would be quite inefficient.

I think.

[Knight of Cydonia]

i think if we use it wisely, Nuclear Power will give some benefits to us. i.e if we use it as a powerplant, though it may still have a big risk to use this kind of energy.

[Bremsstrahlung]

Anti-matter as a form of energy is useless unless we can find it lying around, which is impossible, or find a way of creating large ammounts very efficiently. Which is unlikely.

The only real danger is nuclear proliferiation, or terrorists getting their hands on nuclear material. But this isnt a problem if you took nuclear power out of indivudual government hands and into a global body created to generate, mine and work the powerplants. Although the feasibility of that is hard to picture

[molecular transmutation]

I have a specific question. I have heard of Fission as a possible energy source much greater then nucleur fusion? Is there someone who may inform me of this theriotical energy souce? i have yet met someone who was able to explain this completely...

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by molecular transmutation
I have a specific question. I have heard of Fission as a possible energy source much greater then nucleur fusion? Is there someone who may inform me of this theriotical energy souce? i have yet met someone who was able to explain this completely...

I think you mean the other way around? ;)

Nuclear fission, ie splitting of atom nuclei is how our current nuclear power plants work to create energy. Fusion power, the method of instead fusing atom nuclei together is still under research, although considerable progress is being made on that front all the time -- the newest experimental reactor ITER, superior to it's precessors, was produced as late as 2005. Thus it is not unlikely at all that we may have much cleaner and safer nuclear energy source in our hands in a very near future. :)

It's in these characteristics the greatness of fusion power tech lies.

The risk of an accident of catastrophic proportions would be considerably smaller than in fission reactors, as the fusion reactor chamber would contain much less fuel at a given time -- only for a few minutes, while the fission reactor chamber has a supply for a year.

The amounts of waste created by fusion power would be miniscule in comparison, as a matter of fact the heavily radioctive waste would mainly consist of the reactor core, and the time it is capable to create significant damage would be radically decreased. A wiki article explains:


The large flux of high-energy neutrons in a reactor will make the structural materials radioactive. The radioactive inventory at shut-down may be comparable to that of a fission reactor, but there are important differences.

The half-life of the radioisotopes produced by fusion tend to be less than those from fission, so that the inventory decreases more rapidly. Furthermore, there are fewer unique species, and they tend to be non-volatile and biologically less active. Unlike fission reactors, whose waste remains dangerous for thousands of years, most of the radioactive material in a fusion reactor would be the reactor core itself, which would be dangerous for about 50 years, and low-level waste another 100. By 300 years the material would have the same radioactivity as coal ash. [2]. Some material will remain in current designs with longer half-lives. [3]

Additionally, the materials used in a fusion reactor are more "flexible" than in a fission design, where many materials are required for their specific neutron cross-sections. This allows a fusion reactor to be designed using materials that are selected specifically to be "low activation", materials that do not easily become radioactive. Vanadium, for example, would become much less radioactive than stainless steel. Carbon fibre materials are also low-activation, as well as being strong and light, and are a promising area of study for laser-inertial reactors where a magnetic field is not required.

In general terms, fusion reactors would create far less radioactive material than a fission reactor, the material it would create less damaging biologically, and the activity "burn off" within a time period that is well within existing engineering capabilities.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power)

I hope this was helpful. :)

[welshred]

I would say yes for nuclear power. Sustainable power isnt developed enough to provide power for a whole country. Nuclear would be much better than just sticking with fossil fuels. Plus whilst nuclear power is being used, hopefully renewables will be researced so that they will be a more realistic source of power.

[Tommy-K]

I voted yes, but what I really mean is yes, if the waste can be stored efficiently to prevent it leaking into water supplies etc.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by Tommy-[email protected] 07, 2007 09:11 am
I voted yes, but what I really mean is yes, if the waste can be stored efficiently to prevent it leaking into water supplies etc.
Uhh...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB32dS6wDNE...related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB32dS6wDNE&mode=related&search=)

[EwokUtopia]

If for nuclear energy, but nuclear weapons are perhaps the most terrifying thing in the world to me, and nuclear energy means nuclear technology, and it needs to be strictly restricted, every last bit of uranium accounted for. Why? Because if they wanted to, the US military could annihilate all life on the planet, we cant allow for any more of this shit to fall into crazy American hands. On that note, Hans Blix should go to Iowa for a WMD search, and if that is positive, time for Operation American Freedom, or OAF.

But, we should not rely exclusively on Nuclear energy, we need to develop technology to make solar power a viable thing. If it is possible, my little SF vision of this is make huge solar panels floating in space that can periodically discharge energy through a massive lightning bolt to a station on the ground. That would be pretty neat.

[RedAnarchist]

In the first poll, I think I voted no, but in this one I'm voting yes.

[apathy maybe]

Care to explain the change of heart?

After all, nuclear power hasn't suddenly gotten any less dangerous, uranium hasn't become any more plentiful, and we still don't have fusion or thorium reactors.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 27, 2007 02:44 pm
Care to explain the change of heart?

After all, nuclear power hasn't suddenly gotten any less dangerous, uranium hasn't become any more plentiful, and we still don't have fusion or thorium reactors.
The last time I voted I considered nuclear power synonymous with nuclear weapons. Although there are dangers, I agree with welshred that we can utilise nuclear power whilst researching renewable alternatives.

[Rage Against Right]

I am against it as of yesterday, i went to see Dr Helen Caldicott speak on Nuclear Power and she changed my views:

The specifics have lost me now but so many thousands tonnes a second of water are needed to cool the reactor, without it the temperature gets to hot and a meltdown occurs. This is using copious amounts of water, which if i'm not mistaken is running out. On top of this the amount of energy that is needed to build the initial reactors is feniminoal. So much energy goes into actually making nuclear power (which is really just boiling water to turn turbines) it almost defeats the purpose of the nuclear energy.
Some facts
- 40% of Europe is radioactive
- 2 to 3 kg of plutoniam is enough to, kill the entire human race
- One spent nuclear fuel rod has enough energy for 200 Hirashema bombs
- if the reactors on 3 mile island meltdown, it would cause Manhatten to be unlivable for our lifetime and many to come.
- America has 104 Nuclear Reactors

I am in no way an expert in this field so here is a source for these claims "Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Power is not the answer to global warming or anything else, Published 2006" (its a book)
sorry it's not a web adress i don't know of one.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am against it as of yesterday, i went to see Dr Helen Caldicott speak on Nuclear Power and she changed my views:

:rolleyes: Did you actually check her credentials out? She could be a ThD for all you know. As it turns out, she has a medical degree and is thus not qualified to talk on matters of nuclear physics or the engineering of reactors. She used an appeal to authority and you fell for it hook, line and sinker.


The specifics have lost me now but so many thousands tonnes a second of water are needed to cool the reactor, without it the temperature gets to hot and a meltdown occurs. This is using copious amounts of water, which if i'm not mistaken is running out.

Water is not "running out", and it would be trivially easy to design a cooling system that doubled as a distiller, enabling nuclear reactors to be cooled using dirty water and in the process turn it into clean water.


On top of this the amount of energy that is needed to build the initial reactors is feniminoal.

No more than any coal station.


So much energy goes into actually making nuclear power (which is really just boiling water to turn turbines) it almost defeats the purpose of the nuclear energy.

Coal & Gas stations function in exactly the same manner, except that they use much less efficient chemical reactions (burning) as opposed to nuclear reactions which are more efficient - that's why atom bombs are more powerful than conventional explosives of the same weight.


Some facts
- 40% of Europe is radioactive

Wrong. 100% of Europe is radioactive, thanks to natural background radiation. Not that such radiation poses a significant risk to public health.


- 2 to 3 kg of plutoniam is enough to, kill the entire human race

Wrong. Plutonium, while a toxic heavy metal and not recommended as a side order, is far from being the most poisonous substance in the world. Ricin is far more toxic.


- One spent nuclear fuel rod has enough energy for 200 Hirashema bombs

That kind of contradicts your earlier point about nuclear power being inefficient, as well as being wrong - if it has that much energy in it, why are they throwing it away?


- if the reactors on 3 mile island meltdown, it would cause Manhatten to be unlivable for our lifetime and many to come.

It's a good thing that such reactors have multiple safeties with backups to help prevent that from happening, as well as having thick, multi-walled shells to contain any potential meltdown.

In short, Ms Caldicott is full of shit. I prefer to listen to people who are actually qualified in the field upon which they are making a judgement on when forming my own opinions. I encourage you to do the same.

[socialistfuture]

what about that uranium is a finite resource, and that it would be simply moving from one non renewable resource to another, tho do agree with what was first said about hydro etc.

i think its best to have a variety of energy sources, be more effecient and make more effecient things.

theres also offshore wind power generation.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

what about that uranium is a finite resource,

It'll last hell of a lot longer than fossil fuels. And when the uranium runs out we can use thorium.

[socialistfuture]

and when that runs out we can use another finite resource, and when that runs out we can move on to another finite resource, and when that gets depleted......

sumthing dont seem right....

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 12:48 am
and when that runs out we can use another finite resource, and when that runs out we can move on to another finite resource, and when that gets depleted......

sumthing dont seem right....
Yes, that's the way it works with resources that are finite. It's stupid to use them once they provide no net energy gain, but it's equally stupid to neglect them simply because they're finite. If an energy source is available, you use it.

Also, it is only sensible to devote some resources that are finite towards acquiring resources that are technically finite but infinite in practical terms.

[socialistfuture]

heres some extracts from an article printed in the pacific ecologist



Taking The Wind Out Of Nuclear Power

PETER BUNYARD exposes the dangerous and uneconomic reality behind the myths of nuclear energy's cheapness, safety and low greenhouse gas emissions.

What can the nuclear industry do for us?

Advocates have long seen nuclear power as the saviour of industrial society, delivering unlimited energy, cheaply and safely. It's now being promoted as the answer to the growing global energy crisis, apparently providing an attractive alternative to fossil fuels, while also reducing their damaging influence on global climate.1 For example, the World Energy Council recently said: Nuclear power is of fundamental importance for most WEC members because it is the only energy supply which already has a very large and well diversified resource (and potentially unlimited resource if breeders are used), is quasi-indigenous, does not emit greenhouse gases, and has either favourable or at most slightly unfavourable economics. In fact should the climate change threat become a reality, nuclear is the only existing power technology which could replace coal in base load.2

But before we become dependent on nuclear power to solve our ever-increasing need for energy, we should check the basic facts and make the relevant comparisons.

Conservation, greenhouse gas and nuclear plants

Firstly, let's consider the benign potential of energy conservation. Amory Lovins, William Keepin and Gregory Kats (Energy Policy, December 1988) of the Rocky Mountain Institute have shown energy conservation strategies are far more effective in reducing carbon dioxide emissions than constructing power stations of whatever type. Nuclear power only produces electricity and can only possibly displace electricity plants, not the bulk of CO2 emissions which come from cars, trucks, factory smokestacks and home furnaces.

They also looked at the costs of nuclear versus improved energy efficiency and found every dollar invested in energy efficiency displaces 6.8 times more carbon than the same investment in nuclear power. "To the extent investments in nuclear power divert funds away from efficiency," the study concludes, "the pursuit of a nuclear response to greenhouse warming would effectively exacerbate the problem." Obviously it would be much better to replace investment in nuclear power with investment in energy efficiency, for example insulating drafty buildings or installing energy-efficient light bulbs.

Is nuclear power a realistic option?

Today, 440 nuclear reactors, with a capacity totalling 363 gigawatts (109 watts), provide 16 percent of electricity used worldwide,3 and 6 percent of total energy worldwide. The reactors need about 67,000 tonnes of natural uranium annually. Uranium, like petroleum is a finite resource. Once the high-grade uranium ores are exhausted, the energy required to extract and process the more common but much poorer grade ores for continuing use in nuclear reactors will result in the production of more CO2 than if fossil fuels were burned directly. Hence, a massive worldwide nuclear programme will add cumulatively to energy demands, rather than solve them.4

* Current uranium reserves, according to 2003 data from the World Nuclear Association, are about 3.5 million tonnes, enough to last 50 years but only at present consumption rates. If large numbers of nuclear reactors were to be built to satisfy our ever-increasing demand for electricity, reserves of high-grade ore would be rapidly exhausted, leaving huge quantities of low-grade ores most of which would cost more energy to utilise than it would deliver in electricity. Even if useful uranium resources were found to be much larger than now estimated, it would only satisfy global demand for several decades and then the world would be left with huge quantities of radioactive waste with no source of energy to sequester it safely. 4

* As 2003 data from the World Nuclear Association shows, there is not even enough uranium left to provide the world's current annual total electrical production of 55 EJ for a decade, even if the large amount of energy needed to properly dismantle the reactor is also used, thus leaving the dangers of radioactive waste pollution of the environment for future generations to bear. 4

* A disturbing feature of the cost of nuclear power is many of the costs will have to be paid by unborn generations, who will not have benefitted from the nuclear-produced energy - see section below, Is nuclear power safe? A great deal of fossil fuel is needed after a nuclear power plant has stopped producing energy. To date none of these huge debts incurred by existing nuclear power plants have been paid. 4

* Nuclear power actually requires large amounts of fossil fuel, carbon dioxide-producing energy, used in the mining of uranium, its milling and enrichment; in the building of nuclear plants and reactors, the transport and storage of large quantities of highly dangerous radioactive waste for millennia; and in the decommissioning and final dismantling of nuclear plants. An analysis shown in the study Nuclear Power, The Energy Balance of the complete lifecycle of nuclear power, shows generating electricity from nuclear power emits 20-40% of the carbon dioxide per kiloWatt hour of a gas-fired system. 4 But this is a temporary situation, true only as long as rich, high-grade uranium ores are available. Once high-grade ores are exhausted, and lower grades used, the carbon dioxide emissions from nuclear power will increase until more energy is used than produced.

-----------------
References

[1] NEA (2002) Nuclear Energy and the Kyoto Protocol. Paris: OECD.

[2] See for example website of World Nuclear Energy Association

[3] World Nuclear Association, 2005. Nuclear Power in the world today. Information and issue brief, January 2005. see Storm van Leeuwen, J.W. and Smith,P, August 2005, Nuclear Power: the Energy Balance, Chapter 2; based on 2003 data from the World Nuclear Association

[4] Storm van Leeuwen, J.W. and Smith, P., August 2005. Nuclear Power: the Energy Balance. Chapter 3.

[5] William Keepin. On costs and limitations of a large-scale nuclear power programme. Greenpeace, OUP 1990.

[6] William Keepin and Gregory Kats. On greenhouse gas emissions from the use of nuclear power in the USA. Energy Policy December 1988.

[7] Fast reactors are so-called because they operate with neutrons that have not been reduced in speed by a moderator.'Fast' neutrons, surplus to maintaining the power of the reactor are allowed to interact with a'sleeve' of depleted uranium, hence uranium rich in uranium-238, placed around the core of a fast reactor. By picking up a neutron and emitting beta radiation (a supercharged electron) the uranium gains a proton so turning it into plutonium-239. Plutonium production means reprocessing spent radioactive fuel to extract fissile material.

[8] IPCC working group II (1995) Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change : Scientific-Technical Analyses. Climate Change 1995 IPCC working group II.

[9] Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith., Chapter 3, August 2005. Nuclear Power: the Energy Balance.

[socialistfuture]

Problems With New Nuclear Hope - Thorium

Thorium, a naturally occurring radioactive metal, as well as uranium, can be used as fuel in a nuclear reactor. Given a start with some other fissile material (U-235 or Pu-239), a breeding cycle similar to but more efficient than that with U-238 and plutonium (in slow-neutron reactors) can be set up. The Th-232 absorbs a neutron to become Th-233 which normally decays to protactinium-233 and then U-233. The irradiated fuel can then be unloaded from the reactor, the U-233 separated from the thorium, and fed back into another reactor as part of a closed fuel cycle.

Problems include the high cost of fuel fabrication due partly to the high radioactivity of U-233 which is always contaminated with traces of U-232; the similar problems in recycling thorium due to highly radioactive Th-228; some weapons proliferation risk of U-233; and the technical problems (not yet satisfactorily solved) in reprocessing. Much development work is still required before the thorium fuel cycle can be commercialised, and the effort required seems unlikely while (or where) abundant uranium is available.

Thorium, abundantly found in Australia and India is about 3 times more abundant than uranium. The hitch with using thorium as a fuel is that breeding must occur before any power can be extracted from it, and that requires neutrons. Some engineers have proposed using particle accelerators to generate the needed neutrons, but this process is hugely costly, and the only practical scheme at the moment is to combine the thorium with conventional nuclear fuels (made up of either plutonium or enriched uranium or both), the fissioning of which provides the neutrons to start things off.

Previous work on thorium elsewhere in the world did not lead to its adoption, largely because its performance in water reactors, such as the first core at the Indian Point power station, did not live up to expectations. Given this history, it may come as a surprise that thorium-based nuclear fuels are once again being considered, this time as the means to stem the potential proliferation of nuclear weapons. Using thorium to prevent plutonium buildup, requires the fuel to be configured differently than in most past experiments. Those trials incorporated highly enriched uranium (now discouraged because of proliferation worries) and presupposed the spent fuel would be reprocessed to extract its fissile contents. Neither practice is now envisaged. The thorium-based fuel assemblies currently being designed are different from past examples in other ways too. For example, they can withstand greater exposure to the heat and radiation inside the core of a reactor, without exploding, which allows more of the fertile thorium-232 to be converted into fissile uranium-233. But whether enough energy to generate neutrons can be supplied by a particle accelerator on the scale required is an unanswered question, as is whether any government is willing to take on the risks involved in financing such a gigantic project.

DANGERS - Powdered thorium metal is often pyrophoric and should be handled carefully. Thorium disintegrates with the eventual production of "thoron," an isotope of radon (220-Rn). Radon gas is a radiation hazard. Good ventilation of areas where thorium is stored or handled is therefore essential. Exposure to thorium in the air can lead to increased risk of cancers of the lung, pancreas and blood. Exposure to thorium internally leads to increased risk of liver diseases. Thorium-232 decays very slowly (its half-life is about three times the age of the earth) but other thorium isotopes occur in the thorium and uranium decay chains. Most of these are short-lived but much more radioactive than Th-232.

Sources: Wikipedia Commons; The Uranium Information Centre; American Scientist Sept/Oct 2003; Storm van Leeuwen, J.W. and Smith, P., August 2005. Nuclear Power: the Energy Balance, Chapter 3.

[Dr Mindbender]

I am in favour of it, as long as at the same time we invest into researching nuclear fusion, which produces no pollution.

[socialistfuture]

thats like saying i support coal but only if we are looking into 'clean coal' which doesnt exist at this point in time.

any idea when fusion is ment to be around?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 11:15 pm
thats like saying i support coal but only if we are looking into 'clean coal' which doesnt exist at this point in time.

any idea when fusion is ment to be around?
Ive seen on television before that successfull experiments have been carried out, but all the countries are clambering about to produce it on such a scale to make it industrially feasible. I found this link:
http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/05/23/opi...on_30034910.php (http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/05/23/opinion/opinion_30034910.php)

this too:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/China_s...how/2065282.cms (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/China_set_to_beat_India_in_N-fusion_research/articleshow/2065282.cms)

[socialistfuture]

so again there is no clear timeframe - in the not so distant future we 'might' have fussion eh? so onward with nuclear?


if fusion is ever to work in industrial power stations, it will take many decades. Even if ITER is successful, and if one solves the tritium and material problems, everything would need to be tested in real size, and only then could a first prototype of an industrial reactor be built. A drastic reduction of CO2 emissions is an urgent priority, but fusion is unlikely to produce sufficient energy to achieve that goal before the twenty-second century

[Soterios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 08:54 pm
anti-matter anyone (fyi its a real thing not just something dan brown made up....and the prton acc is real too...tho i dont think weve goten any anti matter yet....)
research into anti-matter is currently being conducted by CERN, they just bought some new particles accelerators that are under construction as we speak. in theory, this is the perfect form of power, but the amount of money and research that will be needed to be put into this is rather impractical.

[socialistfuture]

again, any set date it might be of more use than as a subject for sci fi books?
how much investment has been made and what are the results so far?

[Janus]

research into anti-matter is currently being conducted by CERN, they just bought some new particles accelerators that are under construction as we speak
Research is being conducted in many labs around the world, CERN being just one of them though due to its size and resources, it always gets the most attention particularly in regards to their latest LHC in development.


in theory, this is the perfect form of power, but the amount of money and research that will be needed to be put into this is rather impractical.
Currently.

[socialistfuture]

are any of the labs worker controlled or sun in a decentralized manner?
any idea how much funding has gone into the research and what the results have been?

[socialistfuture]

In recent years, as prices for oil have surged and concerns over global warming have grown, experts around the world have debated ways to develop alternatives to traditional energy, from using corn for ethanol to harnessing wind for electricity. And governments from India to Britain to the U.S. are considering whether to make more use of a long-standing, but controversial energy source: nuclear power.
In the U.S., politicians as diverse as President George W. Bush and onetime rival Al Gore have expressed interest in expanding nuclear power (see BusinessWeek.com, 3/21/07, "Gore Rings a Green Alarm"
<http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2007/db20070321_292624.htm>).
A key reason is nuclear power&#39;s reputation for being clean, because such plants typically don&#39;t generate the carbon dioxide that contributes to global warming. Just this month, Exelon (EXC
<http://stockmarket.businessweek.com/www/search.html?q=EXC>) won approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a site on which they could build the first new U.S. nuclear power plant since 1979.
The controversy, of course, has long been over the hazards of using radioactive materials to produce energy. Twenty-eight years ago this week, on Mar. 28, 1979, an accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania sparked protests against nuclear plants in the U.S. The movement was solidified seven years later by the Chernobyl meltdown in the Soviet Union. Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club remain staunchly opposed to nuclear power.

A Popular Perception Challenged
Now, some scientists and other experts are beginning to raise a different question about nuclear power: Is it really as clean as supporters contend? A report, released on Mar. 26 by a British nongovernmental organization called the Oxford Research Group, disputes the popular perception that nuclear is a clean energy source. It argues that while nuclear plants may not generate carbon dioxide while they operate, the other steps necessary to produce nuclear power, including the mining of uranium and the storing of waste, result in substantial amounts of carbon dioxide pollution. "As this report shows, hopes for the climate-protecting potential of nuclear energy are entirely misplaced," says Jürgen Trittin, a former minister of the environment in Germany and a contributor to the report. "Nuclear power cannot be promoted on environmental grounds."
The report, called "Secure Energy? Civil Nuclear Power, Security and Global Warming," examines a number of risks from nuclear power development, including concerns over the disposal of radioactive waste and the threats from terrorist groups. But its most novel component may be the quantitative examination of carbon emissions on a comprehensive basis. "Carbon emissions are a global problem and it&#39;s time to look at the carbon released by nuclear power globally," says Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen, author of the report&#39;s chapter on carbon emissions. "The assumption has long been that the [greenhouse] effect is zero, but the evidence shows otherwise." The report comes as British Prime Minister Tony Blair is pushing to build a new generation of nuclear plants in the name of curbing global warming.
Environmental groups like Greenpeace, the Rocky Mountain Institute and Germany&#39;s Öko-Institut have argued in recent years that nuclear power comes with hidden carbon emissions. But the Oxford Research Group study is the most quantitative and up-to-date advancement of this assertion, as its authors look to steer the fierce policy debate stirring in Britain.

Looking at the Numbers
Supporters of nuclear power dismiss the arguments as disingenuous. "It&#39;s a silly argument," says Craig Nesbit, a spokesperson for Chicago-based Exelon, the largest U.S. provider of nuclear power. "It&#39;s an argument environmentalists against [nuclear power] have concocted to make it sound like nuclear is not a carbon emission-free energy source, when in fact it is." Nesbit says that based on such an approach even wind or solar power create carbon emissions.

New Debate Over Nuclear Option
(page 2 of 2)
True enough, van Leeuwen says. But he argues that it&#39;s precisely this kind of overall approach that&#39;s necessary to understand the carbon impact of new energy sources. The British report says that nuclear&#39;s carbon emissions "lie somewhere between renewable energy sources and fossil fuels." The report estimates that while coal, the primary source of electric power in the U.S., produces 755 grams of carbon per kilowatt hour, the range for nuclear is between 10 and 150 grams per kilowatt hour. Wind power is 11 to 37 grams.
But van Leeuwen contends that nuclear will become more carbon polluting over time. The reason is that it will become more difficult to do things like extract uranium ore and store nuclear waste, requiring more materials, equipment, and energy. The report calculates that if world nuclear generating capacity remains at today&#39;s level—just over 2% of the world&#39;s energy supply—then by 2070 uranium-fueled nuclear power would produce as much CO&sub2; as a gas-fired power station, or nearly 400 grams of carbon per kilowatt hour. If the world increases its use of nuclear power, the emissions could go even higher. "The claim of the nuclear industry that nuclear power emits low levels of CO&sub2; and other greenhouse gases is not based on scientifically verifiable evidence," reads the report.

Moving Ahead, Slowly
Authors of the report also say that since building nuclear plants can take up to 10 years, they wouldn&#39;t help curb carbon emissions within the next decade, which is the time frame many scientists say bold steps must be taken to slow the warming trend. "It&#39;s a case of too little, too late," says van Leeuwen, a physical chemist and a member of the review panel for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (The IPCC is the international group of scientists that issued a report in February confirming that global warming is a real phenomenon, and that humans are its main agents.)
While Exelon has won preliminary approval for its new nuclear plant in Clinton (Ill.), it isn&#39;t proceeding with construction right away. Nesbit says the company will not go ahead with building the Clinton plant until it&#39;s clear that market conditions and local support for the plant are favorable. The decision to commit the &#036;6 billion to &#036;10 billion for construction could take several years.
Nesbit says that a majority of Americans support nuclear power now—provided there is adequate plant security. Exelon is moving cautiously, exploring other sites in Texas. "The bottom line is that you can&#39;t be carbon emissions-free on a mass scale without nuclear power,"
Nesbit says.
Other U.S.-based nuclear power providers are seeking opportunities, too.
Charlotte (N.C.)-based Duke Energy (DUK <http://www.businessweek.com/ticker/>), the fourth-largest provider of nuclear power in the U.S., is looking to construct more plants. The company&#39;s Chief Executive Officer, Jim Rogers, testified before a joint House of Representatives committee on Mar. 20, calling for more openness to the nuclear option, as well as a mandatory cap on carbon emissions in the U.S. That day, the utilities commission in North Carolina green-lighted the company&#39;s efforts to build a new nuclear plant in Cherokee County, S.C., jointly owned by Southern Company (SO <http://www.businessweek.com/ticker/>).

Revisiting Positions
Nuclear power producers are hoping the tide of public fear and environmentalist opposition is turning. While not voicing outright support, a handful of American environmental groups have recently expressed openness to at least consider nuclear power as part of the energy mix of the future. The Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Environmental Defense are among those expressing cautious openness. The Union of Concerned Scientists said in a position paper this month that atomic energy "should be considered as a longer-term option if other climate-neutral means for producing electricity prove inadequate," though it opposes new capacity until problems like waste disposal are resolved. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has also expressed support for exploring ways to get more nuclear plants on line.
Still, many of the best-known environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, are opposed to nuclear power because of concerns about the disposal of radioactive waste, the proliferation of deadly nuclear material, and the high cost of constructing nuclear plants. In addition, the location slated by the U.S. government to store the bulk of U.S. nuclear waste, Yucca Mountain in Nevada, is not permitted to do so because of fierce opposition from Nevada residents and politicians.
For now, nuclear supporters will proceed cautiously with plans to expand operations. But they could be hindered if groups like the Oxford Research Group can convince the public and governments around the world that even the safest nuclear operation won&#39;t help stop global warming.
Herbst <mailto:[email protected]> is a reporter for BusinessWeek.com in New York.

[cubist]

having worked for british energy, and my dad being a mathematician who does the pipe stress analysis and having seen some horrific videos on chernobyl, it is dangerous but there are many implications about the soviet ran faciilty incomparison to those today the NII is very strict it took alot of hard work from my dads department to get hunterston liscensed after it was closed for concerns of safety regarding the boiler. but thats the point it was instantly shut down not cus it would blow up but becuase there was a small problem which could escalate into something bigger.


in britain the AGR recator is almost 100 * safer than the PWR ones in say france or america but they are more expensive to run.

but the power stations are never loaded more than 50% of tehre potential

they are literraly very safe.

the UK government is 100% behind nuclear power and until a better resource is actually in production, and cost effective. the 25% of the electricity in the national grid will continue to be provided by nuclear power.

[socialistfuture]

if the amount invested in nuclear was invested in renewables they would be cost effective, and far safer. still no sollution to the nuclear waste or nuclear weapons side of the equation, also considering the recent politcal scuffle between bush and putin.

[Red Rebel]

Nuclear power is the best alternative resource we currently have available. Wind & solar are horribly inefficent. And we know how fossil fuels mess up the enviroment. I live several miles away from a nuclear power plant. My father even worked there. Nuclear waste is created, yes. It is still better than fossil fuels. Also there are multiple precautions taken against the possible dangers the plant presents.

[socialistfuture]

it is quite similar tho - it uses uranium - a depletable resource. it creates waste which has no proper disposal method.

nuclear needs fossil fuels for uranium extraction, transportation and then for it to be used in the nuclear power plant.

i imagine most uranium comes from australia, if that supply ever was not secure a lot of power would be down. i think it is dangerous to be too reliant on one source.

[apathy maybe]

Actually, Canada produces the most concentrated uranium oxides, though Australia does have the largest amount of ore.


Originally posted by Wikipedia
Australia has 38% of the world&#39;s uranium ore resources - the most of any country.

In 2005, seventeen countries produced concentrated uranium oxides, with Canada (27.9% of world production) and Australia (22.8%) being the largest producers and Kazakhstan (10.5%), Russia (8.0%), Namibia (7.5%), Niger (7.4%), Uzbekistan (5.5%), the United States (2.5%), Ukraine (1.9%) and China (1.7%) also producing significant amounts.

Also, while most nuclear power today does use uranium, thorium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/thorium) is being researched for future power reactors.

[socialistfuture]

thats fine - coal companies are working on carbon sequestation - doesnt mean coal is clean. or that nuclear has a long term secure energy supply (uranium) and it doesnt have a decent disposal system worked out - and thats just waste and supply - not issues regarding nuclear weaponary.

not sustainable, safe and disposable - and potentially highly dangerous. not a smart move to move into rapid expansion of nuclear at this point in time. maybe if u solve those problems i&#39;d consider it.

[socialistfuture]

Renewable energy 10 times cheaper
Friday, 6 July 2007, 5:10 pm
Press Release: Greenpeace
GREENPEACE AND EREC JOINT PRESS RELEASE

Embargoed until: 00:01 FRIDAY 6 JULY 2007

Cost of renewable energy 10 times cheaper than ‘business as usual’ fossil-fuelled future, says breakthrough report

Savings of US &#036;180 billion per year predicted in first global analysis of renewable energy versus fossil fuels

Amsterdam/Brussels, 6th July 2007: Investing in a renewable electricity future will save 10 times the fuel costs of a ‘business as usual’ fossil-fuelled scenario,
saving &#036;180 billion USD annually and cut CO2 emissions in half by 2030, according to a joint report by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy
Council (EREC) released today. (1)


In the first global analysis of its kind, “Future Investment - A sustainable Investment Plan for the power sector to save the Climate’, demonstrates
a powerful economic argument for a shift in global investments towards renewable energy (including solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and bio energy), within
the next 23 years, and away from dangerous coal and nuclear power. The report gives the financial rationale for Greenpeace’s "Energy [R]evolution,"
a blueprint for how to cut global CO2 emissions by 50% by 2050, while maintaining global economic growth (2).

"As Live Earth mobilises billions of people to take urgent action against the climate threat, our report shows not only that the world’s electricity
needs can be met by renewable energy, but that by doing so, we will literally save trillions of dollars; a massive US &#036;180 billion a year, forever”
said Sven Teske, Greenpeace International, Energy Expert .

“In sharp contrast, a ‘business as usual’ approach casts a dark cloud over our future. Its 10,000 new fossil fuel power plants,
would increase global CO2 emissions by over 50%, and more than double fuel costs; there is no way of putting a price on the disastrous results
this will have for environment and humanity.”

The Energy [R]evolution needs an extra global annual inventment of &#036;22 billion in clean and renewable power plants on top of current expenditure.
The fuel cost savings in the scenario, of up to &#036;202 billion per year, means this will pay for itself ten times over. Meanwhile,
converting the massive subsidies of &#036;250 billion a year that coal and gas receive to clean, safe renewable energy will
cover the costs of the energy [r]evolution and much more.

According to EREC the global market for wind turbines was worth some €18 billion in 2006, and the total renewable industry &#036;50 billion.
Under an energy [r]evolution scenario, the renewable energy would be worth a massive &#036; 288 billion by 2030.

“The renewable industry is willing and able to deliver the power plants the world needs, we simply need the right climate and energy policy.
Decisions made in the next few years, will continue to have an impact in 2050. Only if a renewable energy path is taken, can
we avoid the worst excesses of climate change&#33;” said Oliver Schäfer, EREC policy director.

The report stresses the urgent need for decisive action now. In the next decade, many existing power plants will need replacing,
and emerging economies such as China, India and Brazil are rapidly building new energy infrastructure.

A copy of “Future Investment - A sustainable Investment Plan for the power sector to save the Climate’ is available
at http://www.greenpeace.org/energy-revolution-financing


ENDS


Notes

1. The Energy [R]evolution Scenario is a real alternative to the IEA´s world energy outlook, and the only practical blueprint for how to cut global energy related CO2 emission by 50% by 2050 to avoid dangerous climate change,
while maintaining global economic growth. You can download it at http://www.greenpeace.org/international/pr...ion-a-sustainab (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/energy-revolution-a-sustainab)

2 With no change in energy policy, utilities will invest in more than 10,000 new fossil fuel power plants until 2030 worldwide. To supply those coal and gas fired power plants with fuel will add up between today and 2030 to US&#036;18,6 trillion,
compared to US&#036;13,1 trillion in the Energy [R]evolution Scenario. This means fuel costs in the Energy [R]evolution Scenario are already 30% lower in the year 2030, by 2050, they are more than 70% lower.

[Lftnmr]

Today, nuclear energy means nuclear weapons, so my answer is no.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 07:57 pm
Today, nuclear energy means nuclear weapons, so my answer is no.
Care to expand? There is a world of difference between a fission power plant and a bomb.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+July 12, 2007 09:53 pm--> (Jazzratt @ July 12, 2007 09:53 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 07:57 pm
Today, nuclear energy means nuclear weapons, so my answer is no.
Care to expand? There is a world of difference between a fission power plant and a bomb. [/b]
Well we have to agree on that. Almost all countries that have access to nuclear technology have developed nuclear bombs.

That is why the imperialists fuzz so much about the Iranian nuclear programme. And Israel bombed and destroyed Iraq&#39;s nuclear stations.

[socialistfuture]

which leads to nuclear proliferation

[hajduk]

i vote for nuclear power becouse is cheap..... but i understand the fear of those who live near by facility.... but for know is god to use nuklear power until we make better way for using alternative energents

[BlakSheep]

Quick Explanation of what anti-matter is:
While this is still in the testing mode, there is a much better, cleaner, and safer energy source. Its unstable and while can be used as devastating war technology, it is the greatest finding in scientific study. Fact, not opinion. It gives out 100% efficiency energy( while nuclear fissure is only 1.5% efficiency), no pollution or radiation whatsoever, and quote " a droplet could power New York City for a full day." A single gram of it contains the energy of a 20-kiloton nuclear bomb-the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The reason it is such a devastating bomb is because if it touches matter at all, even say air, it explodes. Not fire and explosion, but it sucks up the matter in its radius and it literally disappears. Yes, I&#39;m talking about Anti-Matter. The biggest controversy of it is the fact that, the experiment that made it, essentially proved the Big Bang Theory. It is created by colliding subatomic particles. When done, it shows particles colliding at super-speeds, turning into anti-matter, anti-matter then touches matter all around it, explodes, and creates mass energy and chemicals. Thus the Big Bang Theory of how all the energy in the whole of existence, has come one step closer to explaining all. CERN (Conseil Europeen pour la Recher Nucleaire) was the first to make it. Heres a link to the site explaining all about it. http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromce...tter/index.html (http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/index.html)
Truly, the most important scientific discovery in all of history.

Its so cool how Science fiction is becoming science non-fiction. Technology has truly grown. I love Dan Brown&#39;s books, so insightful, and factual in some ways.

[BlakSheep]

But for now, before anti-matter energy can truly be achieved, I&#39;m a solar/wind/hydrogen powered kinda guy. Easy to build yourself too.

[Wilfred]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 08:08 pm

its not a solution since the uranium reserves are depleting as it is, so if we were to focus everything on nuclear energy we&#39;re fucked in no time anyway. Also, because uranium reserves are depleting, we are going to have to use uranium of a lesser quality, which takes more energy to enrich --&#62; pollution
We have plentiful uranium reserves but we can produce more with breeder reactors. However, we should focus on reprocessing so as to separate the usable uranium and plutonium from the actual radioactive waste i.e. fission products.

Breeders? Why don&#39;t you go talk to the french and ask for their tons of radio-active waste produced with the superfenix? Breeders are not an option, too expensive, lousy energy-return-on-energy-invested, and it will take years to produce them and because of AGW we need to stop CO2 emissions asap.

[Wilfred]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 05:23 pm

research into anti-matter is currently being conducted by CERN, they just bought some new particles accelerators that are under construction as we speak
Research is being conducted in many labs around the world, CERN being just one of them though due to its size and resources, it always gets the most attention particularly in regards to their latest LHC in development.


in theory, this is the perfect form of power, but the amount of money and research that will be needed to be put into this is rather impractical.
Currently.
WTF? CERN doesn&#39;t research such stuff. Anti-matter would be a very dense energy-carrier, but you can&#39;t extract it, so it&#39;s not an option for the production of energy and it would be very dangerous to handle it too.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 12:25 am
Breeders are not an option, too expensive,
Really? But we&#39;re going to be having to spend a lot on new energy producing structures anyway - what about the costs of the hundreds of square miles of wind turbines and solar panels that you&#39;ll need. Take for example the 750Kw turbine in Toronto that cost &#036;1.3m and still produces far less energy than a single reactor would, hell it even produces less energy than it is designed for since the wind is not as constant or predictable as the decay of nuclear material.


lousy energy-return-on-energy-invested,

Why is it that you say that the energy returns would be lousy, I was always under the distinct impression that the whole point of breeder reactor was that it made it possible to take more energy from materials because it extracts from what would otherwise be classified as waste.


and it will take years to produce them

Yeah unlike the aforementioned miles and miles of turbines and solar panels which could be up by tomorrow evening, right?


and because of AGW we need to stop CO2 emissions asap.

Damn right we do, that&#39;s why we need to get these reactors built.

[Wilfred]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+August 21, 2007 01:37 am--> (Jazzratt &#064; August 21, 2007 01:37 am)


[/b]


[email protected] 21, 2007 12:25 am
Breeders are not an option, too expensive,
Really? But we&#39;re going to be having to spend a lot on new energy producing structures anyway - what about the costs of the hundreds of square miles of wind turbines and solar panels that you&#39;ll need. Take for example the 750Kw turbine in Toronto that cost &#036;1.3m and still produces far less energy than a single reactor would, hell it even produces less energy than it is designed for since the wind is not as constant or predictable as the decay of nuclear material.
Nuclear power plants are billions of dollars, wind is comparatively cheap. The newer 2-5 MW wind turbines are also more efficient than the older sub MW wind turbines. You can also build wind turbines one at a time and therefore can have a power generated after investing less money than for a nuclear power plant.
This will be a huge advantage for poorer developing countries. The required technology is also simpler so an underdeveloped country can build them sooner than nuclear plants.

I think that everybody who advocates breeders should read the report by the French government on their failed attempt at building one. There must be French communists here, they can probably provide the link sooner than I can.



lousy energy-return-on-energy-invested,

Why is it that you say that the energy returns would be lousy, I was always under the distinct impression that the whole point of breeder reactor was that it made it possible to take more energy from materials because it extracts from what would otherwise be classified as waste.
Well, lousy is still >1, just not as large as you would like. Most estimates I have seen usually give something like 2 to 4. But really, why don&#39;t you read about the German Kalkar and the French Superfenix?



and it will take years to produce them

Yeah unlike the aforementioned miles and miles of turbines and solar panels which could be up by tomorrow evening, right?
Well that technology is comparatively simpler, and you could give home-owners incentives to have solar-panels installed on their roofs. Proliferating wind and solar technology does not pose a security problem, but nuclear does.
The basic wind turbine technology is straightforward electrodynamics, and lots of people understand that, so educating people to repare a wind mill is much easier than for nuclear power plants.

I would have thought that communists would favor a technology which would give more power and influence to common people. I certainly am.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Nuclear power plants are billions of dollars, wind is comparatively cheap. The newer 2-5 MW wind turbines are also more efficient than the older sub MW wind turbines. You can also build wind turbines one at a time and therefore can have a power generated after investing less money than for a nuclear power plant.

Wind power also provides an amount of energy concomitant with their cost (In other words, you get what you pay for). "Billions of dollars" (Actual figures of which I would like to see) is money well spent when you consider the advantages (for the bulk of municipal energy generation) that nuclear power has over wind/solar and fossil fuels. In other words, you get more power for considerably less space taken up.

And building wind turbines and solar panels one at a time is out of the question, since we quite frankly do not have the time to transfer our energy sources from oil so slowly.


This will be a huge advantage for poorer developing countries. The required technology is also simpler so an underdeveloped country can build them sooner than nuclear plants.

It would also be nice to allow underdeveloped countries to develop an infrastructure capable of supporting advanced technology, which is what nuclear with it&#39;s larger energy potential (atomic reactions are more efficient than chemical reactions, remember? That&#39;s why nukes are more powerful pound-for-pound than chemical explosives of the same weight) would allow them to do.

Denying them nuclear technology is patronising in the extreme.


I think that everybody who advocates breeders should read the report by the French government on their failed attempt at building one. There must be French communists here, they can probably provide the link sooner than I can.

One failure does not invalidate an entire technology. The BN-600 in Beloyarsk Nuclear Power Station in Zarechny, Russia has been running since 1980.

It&#39;s a technology worth pursuing because the potential payoffs are enormous.


Well, lousy is still >1, just not as large as you would like. Most estimates I have seen usually give something like 2 to 4. But really, why don&#39;t you read about the German Kalkar and the French Superfenix?

And just how effecient do you suppose wind and solar power to be? Why do you think they build wind/solar farms as opposed to wind/solar stations?


Well that technology is comparatively simpler, and you could give home-owners incentives to have solar-panels installed on their roofs.

Which is fine as a supplementary measure, but don&#39;t expect to run heavy industry off such sources.


Proliferating wind and solar technology does not pose a security problem, but nuclear does.

And how many nuclear wars have been started since the construction of the first nuclear reactor? How many terrorists have flown planes into nuclear power stations?

Not that it would do any good, since they are designed to withstand such attacks.


The basic wind turbine technology is straightforward electrodynamics, and lots of people understand that, so educating people to repare a wind mill is much easier than for nuclear power plants.

And you think civilisation can be run off home made wind turbines? If so you are delusional.


I would have thought that communists would favor a technology which would give more power and influence to common people. I certainly am.

Power plant workers need to eat too you know.

[phasmid]

Nuclear power creates nuclear waste which remains radioactive for thousands of years. This then has to be stored "somewhere". We only have one planet. Can we afford the to lock away portions of the land we have left for radioactive waste?

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 03:41 am
Nuclear power creates nuclear waste which remains radioactive for thousands of years. This then has to be stored "somewhere". We only have one planet. Can we afford the to lock away portions of the land we have left for radioactive waste?
we can use chernobyl for storage of nuclear waste.


also windmills are no viable option i cant even begin to imagine the amount of room it would take to place enough of them.
heck say goodbye to tree&#39;s we dont have the room for them anymore we will have to paint our windmills green instead :rolleyes:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Look, the fact is that atomic reactions are not only the most efficient means of generating energy - they are, in the grand scheme of things, the only means of generating energy.

Where does the energy in fossil fuels come from? Ancient ecosystems, who were powered by the Sun (like nearly all ecosystems), who is in turn powered by nuclear fusion.

Where does wind energy come from? It comes from differences in temperature between different masses of air - differences created by the Sun&#39;s heat, which is powered by nuclear fusion.

Where does hydroelectric energy come from? Water can fall down only if there is something to lift it back up, and that something is, again, solar heat, powered by nuclear fusion.

And solar power is pretty much self-explanatory.

Ultimately, every single energy source we use today, with the exception of nuclear and geothermal, is just one big battery charged by nuclear fusion within the Sun. The best energy source we could possibly hope for in the conceivable future is home-grown nuclear fusion. And while we don&#39;t have that, fission is a decent second.

[Lynx]

Why go nuclear when coal is plentiful?

Carbon emission reduction will be based on improvements in efficiency and sequestration. It is already too late to stop current global warming&#33; We have no choice but to adapt to a warmer Earth. And we will :)

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 09, 2007 05:19 am
Look, the fact is that atomic reactions are not only the most efficient means of generating energy - they are, in the grand scheme of things, the only means of generating energy.

Where does the energy in fossil fuels come from? Ancient ecosystems, who were powered by the Sun (like nearly all ecosystems), who is in turn powered by nuclear fusion.

Where does wind energy come from? It comes from differences in temperature between different masses of air - differences created by the Sun&#39;s heat, which is powered by nuclear fusion.

Where does hydroelectric energy come from? Water can fall down only if there is something to lift it back up, and that something is, again, solar heat, powered by nuclear fusion.

And solar power is pretty much self-explanatory.

Ultimately, every single energy source we use today, with the exception of nuclear and geothermal, is just one big battery charged by nuclear fusion within the Sun. The best energy source we could possibly hope for in the conceivable future is home-grown nuclear fusion. And while we don&#39;t have that, fission is a decent second.
Holy fucking shit, I agree with you.

Alicia


Nuclear power creates nuclear waste which remains radioactive for thousands of years. This then has to be stored "somewhere". We only have one planet.

It doesn&#39;t give off enough radiation to be harmful for as long as you seem to think and the fact that it eventually decays away gives it a huge advantage over the toxic byproducts of more "conventional" power plants.

Lynx


Why go nuclear when coal is plentiful?

As has been pointed out by NoXion, Edric O [to my complete surprise] and I (amongst others) nuclear reactions are far more efficient than chemical ones and create much more usable energy. Coal is old technology which produces harmful by-products (like Radon gas, a radioactive gas which can be deadly if breathed in - which is why living near a coal station is unhealthy).


Carbon emission reduction will be based on improvements in efficiency and sequestration. It is already too late to stop current global warming&#33; We have no choice but to adapt to a warmer Earth. And we will :)

That&#39;s as may be, but why oppose nuclear power? What is so fantastic about coal? That stuff has to be mined by people and it soon coats the windpipe, epiglottis and, famously, lungs. Coal isn&#39;t even the most efficient of the "fossil" fuels.

[Bilan]

Jazz, don&#39;t you think it would be better to direct more funding into researching "green" energy, which doesn&#39;t have the negative impacts on the planet, instead of aiming for nuclear power?
As far as I know, the only problem with solar energy at the present moment is A/ the lack of funding B/ being able to store the energy

[kuro]

In my current frame of mind, I&#39;m strongly against Nuclear power, especially when its being managed under a Capitalist framework, although there might not be another choice at the rate we&#39;re using energy. Having said that, i saw an interesting documentary about a town in Germany run almost completely by solar energy, sorry i cant think of the name. This documentary made a strong impact on me too. Short, simple and easy to understand facts - please watch&#33;

(Climate of Hope)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_NLdRUELjo

[piet11111]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is [email protected] 09, 2007 11:39 am
Jazz, don&#39;t you think it would be better to direct more funding into researching "green" energy, which doesn&#39;t have the negative impacts on the planet, instead of aiming for nuclear power?
As far as I know, the only problem with solar energy at the present moment is A/ the lack of funding B/ being able to store the energy
sure give us a green alternative to nuclear energy that atleast can be considered a viable alternative to our current energy production methods.

solar panels and windmills are not a realistic option

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 12:15 am
solar panels and windmills are not a realistic option
From what I hear, that&#39;s not the case.
I was having a discussion with my friend who said that, apparently, enough energy from the sun reaches the earth each day to power the earth for a year.
And, another thing, is that if we covered half of South Australia (A state in Aus...), we would be able to power the entire planet solely off of Solar power.
I&#39;ll have to do some research into it myself, but that&#39;s just what I heard...

And also, don&#39;t you think that if as much money and time was put into Solar energy research and nuclear energy research, we would have the technology to be able to store the energy, etc?

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 06:42 am
Lynx

As has been pointed out by NoXion, Edric O [to my complete surprise] and I (amongst others) nuclear reactions are far more efficient than chemical ones and create much more usable energy. Coal is old technology which produces harmful by-products (like Radon gas, a radioactive gas which can be deadly if breathed in - which is why living near a coal station is unhealthy).
It is only old technology because of lack of research and development. Until global warming came along, nobody much cared about CO2 releases. Acid rain was the problem back then. If living near coal plants remains dangerous this indicates a lack of concern for the well-being of local citizens. Nothing new there :(


Carbon emission reduction will be based on improvements in efficiency and sequestration. It is already too late to stop current global warming&#33; We have no choice but to adapt to a warmer Earth. And we will :)
That&#39;s as may be, but why oppose nuclear power? What is so fantastic about coal? That stuff has to be mined by people and it soon coats the windpipe, epiglottis and, famously, lungs. Coal isn&#39;t even the most efficient of the "fossil" fuels.
Coal has a lower energy density but it is plentiful (200 year supply for US on US reserves alone).

I oppose the perception of &#39;putting more of our eggs into the nuclear basket&#39;. Our future energy requirements will be met by a variety of technologies. It would be one thing if we were in an energy crisis and had no time to develop alternative technologies, but this is not the case. Nuclear will continue to contribute to electrical power grids as it does today. I don&#39;t see the need for any major shift.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is Theft+October 09, 2007 11:08 am--> (Proper Tea is Theft &#064; October 09, 2007 11:08 am)
[email protected] 10, 2007 12:15 am
solar panels and windmills are not a realistic option
From what I hear, that&#39;s not the case.
I was having a discussion with my friend who said that, apparently, enough energy from the sun reaches the earth each day to power the earth for a year.
And, another thing, is that if we covered half of South Australia (A state in Aus...), we would be able to power the entire planet solely off of Solar power.
I&#39;ll have to do some research into it myself, but that&#39;s just what I heard...[/b]
If solar cells were more rugged and you could indeed build large infrastructure. If there were improvements in their efficiency, the size of those infrastructures would be reduced.

And also, don&#39;t you think that if as much money and time was put into Solar energy research and nuclear energy research, we would have the technology to be able to store the energy, etc?
That depends on whether you are an optimist or a pessimist. The only guarantee of failure is not trying.

In capitalism, it is typical to wait until a crisis is upon us before trying anything new. And naturally, when you believe a situation is urgent, undeveloped technologies always seem too far away.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is [email protected] 09, 2007 11:39 am
Jazz, don&#39;t you think it would be better to direct more funding into researching "green" energy, which doesn&#39;t have the negative impacts on the planet, instead of aiming for nuclear power?
Nuclear is green. The radiation bogeyman is just that, a bogeyman a bugbear used to terrify people.


As far as I know, the only problem with solar energy at the present moment is A/ the lack of funding B/ being able to store the energy

Oh, you forgot C, as I pointed out in another thread:


The problem with solar panels is that even at 100% efficiency (obviously impossible) we&#39;d need 770,000 square metres

If you want the source for that, it is this:


There is ultimately a limit to how much power can be extracted from, say, a square metre of solar panel; that being the power incident upon it in the first place. The solar constant is about 1.3kW.m-2, which means that to generate 1GWe, assuming 100% efficiency, which would violate the laws of Physics anyway, 770,000m2 would be required. This also ignores the effect of night, which is also immutable.

Lynx


It is only old technology because of lack of research and development. Until global warming came along, nobody much cared about CO2 releases. Acid rain was the problem back then. If living near coal plants remains dangerous this indicates a lack of concern for the well-being of local citizens

It will always be old technology - even a "clean burn" coal plant won&#39;t produce nearly as much as a nuclear reactor of similar size.


Coal has a lower energy density but it is plentiful (200 year supply for US on US reserves alone).

We have enough Uranium alone for more than double that.


I oppose the perception of &#39;putting more of our eggs into the nuclear basket&#39;. Our future energy requirements will be met by a variety of technologies. It would be one thing if we were in an energy crisis and had no time to develop alternative technologies, but this is not the case. Nuclear will continue to contribute to electrical power grids as it does today. I don&#39;t see the need for any major shift.

I do. Coal is a fucking nightmare and as our cities and energy demands grow the predicted "200 years" figure will drop sharply, there is no point sticking to the older technology - why use a horse drawn carriage when you can have hummer?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Something Jazzy ignored last time:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/ne...l-deaths-180406 (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/chernobyl-deaths-180406)

Add to that this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukraine/story/0,,1739339,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9604/26/chernobyl/230pm/

and now this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7030536.stm

But, hey, it looks like the ruling class are going ahead with this over our dead bodies, and with help from rather too many lefties.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 09, 2007 07:01 pm
Something Jazzy ignored last time:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/ne...l-deaths-180406 (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/chernobyl-deaths-180406)

Add to that this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukraine/story/0,,1739339,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9604/26/chernobyl/230pm/

and now this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7030536.stm

But, hey, it looks like the ruling class are going ahead with this over our dead bodies, and with help from rather too many lefties.
And how many times has it been pointed out to you that Chernobyl will never happen again? Using Chernobyl as an example of nuclear safety is like using the Titanic as an example of ocean liner safety. Lessons were learned in both cases and have been applied the world over since.

And of course, you&#39;ve got to wonder about the methodologies of "cancer-counters" who go into areas like Chernobyl. Do they just assume that all cancers that ever occurred since Chernobyl have been caused by it? Or is there some kind of measured exactitude in the mess of emotional appeals, radiation boogeymen, and heavy metals that are released without accompanying radiation by other industries anyway?

And you&#39;d be a fool to trust anything by Greenpeace who have an ideological problem with nuclear power more than anything else.

Nobody except greenpeace yes-men and scientific ignoramuses are impressed by your emotional appeals, Rosa.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


And how many times has it been pointed out to you that Chernobyl will never happen again?

I am sorry -- where can I buy another one of those amazing crystal balls you seem to be using?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 09, 2007 07:30 pm
Noxion:


And how many times has it been pointed out to you that Chernobyl will never happen again?

I am sorry -- where can I buy another one of those amazing crystal balls you seem to be using?
It&#39;s not so much a crystal ball theory as an inference from known facts:

I) The only "disastrous" meltdown was Chernobyl.
II) Outside of Russia the reactor design of Chernobyl was not used, and even the reactors of the same design were overhauled to take into account the new safety measures required.
III) The design of nuclear power stations have been improving in safety constantly and have moved away from the active systems (that failed or were not used at Chernobyl) to passive ones.

Therefore another Chernobyl won&#39;t happen and by extension it is ridiculous to use Chernobyl as an example of nuclear safety - as NoXion pointed out it would be like saying the Titanic is a fair example of ocean-liner safety.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jazzy:


It&#39;s not so much a crystal ball theory as an inference from known facts:

Unfortunatley, &#39;facts&#39; are even worse at predicting the future. :o

Stick to the crystal ball -- it&#39;s more scientific. :D

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 09, 2007 07:30 pm
Noxion:


And how many times has it been pointed out to you that Chernobyl will never happen again?

I am sorry -- where can I buy another one of those amazing crystal balls you seem to be using?
I don&#39;t need one. We already have plenty of nuclear engineers who do a much better job.

Do you honestly think that nuclear technology (especially safety, considering the fuss made over radiation) hasn&#39;t moved on at all since Chernobyl?

[Comrade Rage]

I voted for using, as Shrub would say, nukuler paar. We aren&#39;t doing the environment any favor by using oil and &#39;clean&#39; coal as an alternative. Nuclear isn&#39;t perfect but it s so far, the best we have.

[Cult of Reason]

IIRC, the batteries that come with the solar panels, rather than the panels themselves, are the problem: they need to be replaced every five years or so AND require expensive materials, which I do not think are easily renewable either.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


I don&#39;t need one. We already have plenty of nuclear engineers who do a much better job.

So, where can I obtain one of the crystal balls they use?


Do you honestly think that nuclear technology (especially safety, considering the fuss made over radiation) hasn&#39;t moved on at all since Chernobyl?

Do you honestly think that the ruling class has stopped lying to us? :o

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Rosa, that logic leads to some absurd conclusions. To use the example of the titanic, if we used your arguments here in that context, we ought to permanently forgo the ferry, because the ruling class are lying to us about it&#39;s safety in order to continue making a profit. But the likelihood of a second titanic is remote at best, you say? Where can I get one of your crystal balls then, eh?

What do people think of nuclear disarmament? I know it&#39;s a tangent, but I&#39;ve been talking with my family about the CND recently, so the issue&#39;s fresh in my mind.

-Alex

[piet11111]

rosa nuclear reactors are indeed more advanced and much safer then they used to be.
simply because a nuclear accident would be so costly that the cappies would do anything to avoid having to pay for any accidents and cleaning up.


im concerned that you might be argueing not from an objective standpoint but from an emotional one here.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 10:06 am
What do people think of nuclear disarmament? I know it&#39;s a tangent, but I&#39;ve been talking with my family about the CND recently, so the issue&#39;s fresh in my mind.

-Alex
Naturally I fully support it, but it&#39;s quite infeasible in the current political climate, as I&#39;m sure you are well aware.

Interesting you should mention the CND as I recently had a discussion with my dad (CND old-guard :P) about nuclear power and discovered that the CND line was also anti-nuclear power on the grounds that the by-products can be used to make weapons - which strikes me as throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


Rosa, that logic leads to some absurd conclusions. To use the example of the titanic, if we used your arguments here in that context, we ought to permanently forgo the ferry, because the ruling class are lying to us about it&#39;s safety in order to continue making a profit. But the likelihood of a second titanic is remote at best, you say? Where can I get one of your crystal balls then, eh?

What do people think of nuclear disarmament? I know it&#39;s a tangent, but I&#39;ve been talking with my family about the CND recently, so the issue&#39;s fresh in my mind.

And you seem to believe the lies our rulers are telling us.

Why is that?

piet11111:


im concerned that you might be argueing not from an objective standpoint but from an emotional one here.

Well, we can all play that game: I&#39;m concerned that you might be arguing not from an objective standpoint but from a position of total gullibility.

We have been lied to so many times by these bastards, what makes you think they have suddenly started being honest?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And you seem to believe the lies our rulers are telling us.

And what lies would these be? Remember that it isn&#39;t "our rulers" who are telling us that nuclear power is safe - most of them are on "ZOMG radiationz&#33;&#33;11&#33;&#33;&#33;" bandwagon themselves if you look at their energy policies - but the very people who are designing, building, maintaining and inspecting the damn things in the first place.

Engineering and science are not like politics, where the consequences of lies are easily hidden by doubletalk, bafflegab and plain old lying - an engineer who lies about the safety of a nuclear reactor is going to have his lies noisily refuted by the resulting mess, and his head will almost certainly roll because of his lies, whereas politicians get away with lying all the time. There&#39;s a strong disincentive to lie in science as well - there are plenty of up-and-coming young scientists who would love to disprove the latest theories (and the young scientist in question stands to gain much kudos from doing so), which lying will only make it easier to do so. Not to mention the fact that in science other scientists have to be able to reproduce your results.
The fact that I&#39;ve had to explain this to you indicates you&#39;re a beast of politics, not science or engineering.

Unless you would like to argue that the IAEA, USNRC et al, not to mention practically everyone who ever inspected or designed a nuclear reactor are actually in charge. But I would like to see you prove that.


We have been lied to so many times by these bastards, what makes you think they have suddenly started being honest?

Because if they were lying about it, reactors would be melting down left, right and centre, which they obviously are not doing.

And if nuclear power really is the darling of the ruling class as you seem to think, why the hell has it got such bad PR compared to other energy industries? Why does nuclear power get all the bad press when the coal industries kill more in a year than nuclear does in ten? Gas (natural gas, not petrol) station explosions happen more frequently than nuclear meltdowns, yet people object more to having a nuclear power station than a gas-burning plant in their neighbourhood. If you think about, the amount of bad PR compared to actual fatalities caused historically (and this is ignoring safety advances made since then) is simply ludicrous.

Surely the almighty ruling class, with it&#39;s control of the media, would be able to easily stomp out out such bad PR. But that same ruling class finds itself quite unable to silence the hordes of Greenpeace drones parroting their tired old hippie propoganda. My hypothesis is that currently the "ruling class" if the diverse amalgamation of corporate and state interests that comprise our "superiors" can be given such a monolithic moniker, for the most part simply does not care (despite superficial noises to the contrary) about the issue and is content to let things pootle along as they are, except when it puts money into them and their mates&#39; pockets, as in the invasion of Iraq.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


And what lies would these be? Remember that it isn&#39;t "our rulers" who are telling us that nuclear power is safe - most of them are on "ZOMG radiationz&#33;&#33;11&#33;&#33;&#33;" bandwagon themselves if you look at their energy policies - but the very people who are designing, building, maintaining and inspecting the damn things in the first place.

Oh dear, they&#39;ve really done a number on you. :o

By the way, any news on those crystal balls...???

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10, 2007 08:22 pm
Noxion:


And what lies would these be? Remember that it isn&#39;t "our rulers" who are telling us that nuclear power is safe - most of them are on "ZOMG radiationz&#33;&#33;11&#33;&#33;&#33;" bandwagon themselves if you look at their energy policies - but the very people who are designing, building, maintaining and inspecting the damn things in the first place.

Oh dear, they&#39;ve really done a number on you. :o

By the way, any news on those crystal balls...???
This isn&#39;t a response. You have said near enough nothing, of the five paragraphs NoXion wrote you have "replied" to one and you didn&#39;t even bother replying to it with much more than assertion.

I&#39;m sorry that no one is taking your Greenpeace radioactive bugbear stuff seriously, but you can&#39;t simply dismiss anyone who brings up a valid criticism with offhand dismissals. Couching it in anti-authority rhetoric without bothering to explain yourself or back up your claims is not impressing anyone.

[Vanguard1917]

Surely the almighty ruling class, with it&#39;s control of the media, would be able to easily stomp out out such bad PR. But that same ruling class finds itself quite unable to silence the hordes of Greenpeace drones parroting their tired old hippie propoganda.

Indeed. The political elite displays its utter gutlessness by failing to put forward a convincing positive case for nuclear power - as well as technological development in general.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Jazzrat
Nuclear is green. The radiation bogeyman is just that, a bogeyman a bugbear used to terrify people.

From what I hear, alot of these "bogeymen" seem to be killing Indigenous people up North (NT).
And more of these "bogeymen" are going to be dumped on Indigenous land, whilst the Federal government here plans to build more Nuclear power plants.
That shit has to be put somewhere, guess where it&#39;s going...

I think there is a significant difference in situation between here (aus) and there (eng.), on the reasons why we should or shouldn&#39;t use Nuclear power.
The most uranium rich areas in Australia are home to Indigenous folk, and are traditional Indigenous land - sacred or otherwise.
Whilst in Britain, that&#39;s not the case (as far as I am aware, that is).
That adds another very important factor into the equation for us.


The problem with solar panels is that even at 100% efficiency (obviously impossible) we&#39;d need 770,000 square metres

If you want the source for that, it is this:


There is ultimately a limit to how much power can be extracted from, say, a square metre of solar panel; that being the power incident upon it in the first place. The solar constant is about 1.3kW.m-2, which means that to generate 1GWe, assuming 100% efficiency, which would violate the laws of Physics anyway, 770,000m2 would be required. This also ignores the effect of night, which is also immutable.

Fair enough, I dont have the knowledge on it to argue against that.
What about a combination of different energy sources. Say, Wind, solar and wave

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is Theft+October 11, 2007 12:32 am--> (Proper Tea is Theft @ October 11, 2007 12:32 am)
Jazzrat
Nuclear is green. The radiation bogeyman is just that, a bogeyman a bugbear used to terrify people.

From what I hear, alot of these "bogeymen" seem to be killing Indigenous people up North (NT). [/b]
Do you have any data that links the death rate up north and radiation? Hell, since I don&#39;t know much about the situation there I&#39;d like to see how much the radition levels there differ from accepted safe background levels.


And more of these "bogeymen" are going to be dumped on Indigenous land, whilst the Federal government here plans to build more Nuclear power plants.
That shit has to be put somewhere, guess where it&#39;s going...

That&#39;s a problem for sure but it&#39;s not nuclear energy that is to blame. I personally would advocate having a warehouse or similar structure near a nuclear power station where waste can be kept in concret/lead sarcophagi until they decay to safe levels before being disposed of. Someone with more knowledge of nuclear power can say wether or not this is feasible or the best way of doing it.


I think there is a significant difference in situation between here (aus) and there (eng.), on the reasons why we should or shouldn&#39;t use Nuclear power.

I thought your objection to nuclear power was scientific rather than political?


The most uranium rich areas in Australia are home to Indigenous folk, and are traditional Indigenous land - sacred or otherwise.
Whilst in Britain, that&#39;s not the case (as far as I am aware, that is).
That adds another very important factor into the equation for us.

So people should go without electricity because it is important to another group that the land remains untouched? I don&#39;t feel entirely qualified to comment on the situation, living as I do on the other side of the planet, but this seems slightly insane to me (doubtless you can explain why it isn&#39;t quite as mad as it sounds).


What about a combination of different energy sources. Say, Wind, solar and wave

If you were on a very sunny and windy coastal region that might be feasible assuming you had some kind of back up.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jazzy:


You have said near enough nothing, of the five paragraphs NoXion wrote you have "replied" to one and you didn&#39;t even bother replying to it with much more than assertion.

No need to -- all I need do is expose your reckless naivety.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 11, 2007 02:09 am
Jazzy:


You have said near enough nothing, of the five paragraphs NoXion wrote you have "replied" to one and you didn&#39;t even bother replying to it with much more than assertion.

No need to -- all I need do is expose your reckless naivety.
so everyone who prefers the scientists and engineers over the word of known reactionary&#39;s like greenpeace is recklessly naive ?

oh gee well now we have no choice but to yield dont we ? :wacko:

[Die Neue Zeit]

I didn&#39;t vote either way. If it&#39;s fusion power like the experiment in Southern France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER), I&#39;m all for (too bad not enough &#036;&#036;&#036; is being poured into such a monumental project :( , because 10 years of construction is too long a wait). If it&#39;s another Long Island or Chernobyl: <_<

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Jazzrat
Do you have any data that links the death rate up north and radiation? Hell, since I don&#39;t know much about the situation there I&#39;d like to see how much the radition levels there differ from accepted safe background levels.

Ah, no, but I will find it.
I got it from an Indigenous sister in Sydney who was talking about it not long ago.
But I&#39;ll get back to you when I do ;)



That&#39;s a problem for sure but it&#39;s not nuclear energy that is to blame. I personally would advocate having a warehouse or similar structure near a nuclear power station where waste can be kept in concret/lead sarcophagi until they decay to safe levels before being disposed of. Someone with more knowledge of nuclear power can say wether or not this is feasible or the best way of doing it.

That would make sense, but even then, due to the positioning of Nuclear power stations in Australia presently (Lucas Heights, in Sydney) a spill would be...even if the likely hood of it happening is significantly lower than before (chernobyl)


I thought your objection to nuclear power was scientific rather than political?

It&#39;s both, more to the former than the latter, but the latter none the less.


So people should go without electricity because it is important to another group that the land remains untouched?

Of course not&#33; That would be ridiculous.
But to mine sacred land against the will of Indigenous peoples is just ...absurd. To me, anyway.
Don&#39;t get me wrong, I believe land should be held in common by all, and for the benefit of all, and that the direction of it should be dictated for their benefit.
But Nuclear power in this current context - under a capitalist system, and being ruled by an ethnocentric, racist government - can do only more harm.



I don&#39;t feel entirely qualified to comment on the situation, living as I do on the other side of the planet, but this seems slightly insane to me (doubtless you can explain why it isn&#39;t quite as mad as it sounds).


If you were on a very sunny and windy coastal region that might be feasible assuming you had some kind of back up.

:lol: I don&#39;t suppose you&#39;ve been to Australia then.

Alternatively, what do you think of Nuclear fusion?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Piet1111:


so everyone who prefers the scientists and engineers over the word of known reactionary&#39;s like greenpeace is recklessly naive ?

I did not mention Greenpeace.

And, anyone who believes government propaganda is naive.

Why do you need telling this?

You&#39;ll be saying there were WMD in Iraq next... :lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Proper Tea Is Theft+--> (Proper Tea Is Theft)That would make sense, but even then, due to the positioning of Nuclear power stations in Australia presently (Lucas Heights, in Sydney) a spill would be...even if the likely hood of it happening is significantly lower than before (chernobyl)[/b]

"A spill would be..." What? I don&#39;t think you finished that sentence. Perhaps you could reword it, because it doesn&#39;t make sense to me. :P

Instead of a warehouse on the surface of the ground, one could build a covered pit lined with concrete, lead and clay and store the waste there while one waits for the radiation levels to reach more acceptable levels. It would be more structurally stable and much less likely to spill it&#39;s contents if damaged for any reason. And position it in a sensible place, don&#39;t put it on top of a hill or next to a river/lake or some other dumb place. Yucca Mountain is an example of a good place, with the exception that it&#39;s right on top of a fucking fault line&#33; :rolleyes:


Rosa Lichtenstein
Oh dear, they&#39;ve really done a number on you. :o

By the way, any news on those crystal balls...???

Do you have anything to offer to the discussion except your lazy platitudes? Because so far your behaviour in this thread has been decidedly trollish.


And, anyone who believes government propaganda is naive.

I didn&#39;t know that the opinions of qualified scientists and engineers was considered "government propaganda". :rolleyes: You&#39;re really out of your tree.

I seriously hope Rosa that you aren&#39;t representative of the Left, because if so we&#39;re all screwed.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

And you seem to believe the lies our rulers are telling us.

Why is that?

Because there&#39;s no reason to suspect that they&#39;re actually lying in this case. Unless you class everything a non-prole says as a direct lie? Why would it benefit them to deceive us about the safety of nuclear power? What gain do they have if we have a nuclear meltdown that wipes out a city or two?

Again, by this logic, you could justify not trusting anything that is considered safe by the ruling class. You might just as well say that kettles were hurried into sale before proper testing in order to make a quick buck, and that because one kettle blew up once, it is bound to continue to happen. We are assured that kettles are safe by the manufacturers, but hey, why trust their lies?

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Naturally I fully support it, but it&#39;s quite infeasible in the current political climate, as I&#39;m sure you are well aware.

Yeah, probably. It&#39;s fucking bewildering sometimes - The U.S.A has in excess of 5000 active nuclear warheads. What possible scenario could justify having that much firepower?&#33; I&#39;m sure you could wipe out the civilised world with say 900.


Interesting you should mention the CND as I recently had a discussion with my dad (CND old-guard )

I love the lefties of yesteryear. :) Apparrently my grandfather was a friend of Betrand Russell&#39;s during their heyday.


the CND line was also anti-nuclear power on the grounds that the by-products can be used to make weapons - which strikes me as throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Yeah, agreed. I reckon the CND tended to attract the stereotypical conformist left, who take the standard "anti" line.

-Alex

[socialistfuture]

noxion answer this - how many years of uranium left and where is it?

what are you in the world and where does your power come from?

nuclear is a corporate solution to extend industrial capitalism and can lead to nuclear proliferation and a situation where countries like the US and Israel have nuclear weapons and Palestine and Cuba are at threat.

It isn&#39;t grassroots to have nuclear power and it doesn&#39;t help the poor. decentralized or locally owned power does.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is [email protected] 11, 2007 04:54 am
That would make sense, but even then, due to the positioning of Nuclear power stations in Australia presently (Lucas Heights, in Sydney) a spill would be...even if the likely hood of it happening is significantly lower than before (chernobyl)
Nuclear waste spillage carries nothing near the risks of a meltdown. And given all the historical meltdowns have claimed very few lives (the most was at Chernobyl I give the death toll and source in the thread I&#39;ve linked to, I think it was in somewhere around fifty four.) this doesn&#39;t seem like unacceptable risk.


Of course not&#33; That would be ridiculous.
But to mine sacred land against the will of Indigenous peoples is just ...absurd. To me, anyway.
Don&#39;t get me wrong, I believe land should be held in common by all, and for the benefit of all, and that the direction of it should be dictated for their benefit.
But Nuclear power in this current context - under a capitalist system, and being ruled by an ethnocentric, racist government - can do only more harm.

That is an entirely fair analysis. What do you propose as an alternative to nuclear though?


:lol: I don&#39;t suppose you&#39;ve been to Australia then.

I guess I walked into that, but in all seriousness even with the sun and wind on Australia&#39;s coastal regions (I&#39;m going to presume there is loads, although I was mainly inland when I went there and it was a few years back now.) the proposal is very risky. Not only would you need perfect weather conditions every day but you&#39;d have to deal with the pollutants used in making Solar Panels (as well as the expensive parts that need replacing regularly), the constant maintainance that wind turbines require and the sheer inefficiency of wave.


Alternatively, what do you think of Nuclear fusion?

What do you think? :lol: I love it and I want it to manifest in human form so I can have its babies :wub:

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:23 am
Again, by this logic, you could justify not trusting anything that is considered safe by the ruling class. You might just as well say that kettles were hurried into sale before proper testing in order to make a quick buck, and that because one kettle blew up once, it is bound to continue to happen. We are assured that kettles are safe by the manufacturers, but hey, why trust their lies?
...or you would oppose industrial development altogether, based on the crude analysis that it only benefits &#39;Big Business&#39; and &#39;evil corporayshuns&#39;. You would oppose all development and progress, and opportunistically tail middle class environmentalist reaction. You would oppose the building up of a society&#39;s infrastructure (e.g. new roads and airports); you would oppose improvements in agriculture (e.g. biotechnology and intensive farming methods); you would oppose scientific testing methods (i.e. animal testing); you would oppose new residential building developments (e.g. new homes on the &#39;green belt&#39;); you would be hostile to industrial development in the developing world (calling for &#39;sustainable development&#39;) and you would support Malthusian population policies there. In general, you would tend to oppose or be wary of any attempt by human beings to improve their lives through industrial and technological innovation and ingenuity.

This is a praticular shame since it is precisely through industrial and technological development that human progress has historically been made. Thus environmentalism is diametrically opposed to human progress.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


Do you have anything to offer to the discussion except your lazy platitudes? Because so far your behaviour in this thread has been decidedly trollish.

Is it my fault if you need reminding that scientists are not gods, and have been known to distort the truth, lie and suppress information when it comes to military matters (and nuclear weapons), and profit.

The real question is: why do you need telling this?


I seriously hope Rosa that you aren&#39;t representative of the Left, because if so we&#39;re all screwed.

You naive worhippers of science do seem to get riled rather easy.

Wonder why?

You treat it like a religion, and get just as upset as any randon mystic does when your gods are shown to be mortal.

Tut, tut... :rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


Because there&#39;s no reason to suspect that they&#39;re actually lying in this case. Unless you class everything a non-prole says as a direct lie? Why would it benefit them to deceive us about the safety of nuclear power? What gain do they have if we have a nuclear meltdown that wipes out a city or two?

Except the last 60 years of lies. :o

But, hey, who&#39;s counting...?

[Lynx]

The nuclear lobby has latched onto CO2 levels in an attempt to drum up business. That is to be expected. That doesn&#39;t mean there is an urgent need to abandon King Coal and emerging technologies for Atomic Blonde ;)

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 04:51 pm
The nuclear lobby has latched onto CO2 levels in an attempt to drum up business. That is to be expected. That doesn&#39;t mean there is an urgent need to abandon King Coal and emerging technologies for Atomic Blonde ;)
What is this coal fetish you have all about anyway? Coal is harmful to the environment and people around it in a way that makes even the distorted vision of nuclear power that Rosa has look positively healthy.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 12:59 pm

What is this coal fetish you have all about anyway? Coal is harmful to the environment and people around it in a way that makes even the distorted vision of nuclear power that Rosa has look positively healthy.
Coal is a major component of electricity production and one which is easily scalable. Don&#39;t worry, I&#39;m not from West Virginia ;)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by socialistfuture+--> (socialistfuture)noxion answer this - how many years of uranium left and where is it?[/b]

I couldn&#39;t honestly tell you, but I would bet money that there is more uranium (and other fissionables) left than oil.


what are you in the world and where does your power come from?

I reside in the UK, so that means energy is mostly provided by gas and coal. Here are the figures from 2004:


Originally posted by percentages in 2004+--> (percentages in 2004)gas – 39.93% (0.05% in 1990)
coal – 33.08% (67.22% in 1990)
nuclear – 19.26% (18.97% in 1990)
renewables – 3.55% (0% in 1990)
hydroelectric – 1.10% (2.55% in 1990)
imports – 1.96% (3.85% in 1990)
oil – 1.12% (6.82% in 1990) [/b]

As you can see, nuclear provides nearly 20% of all the UK&#39;s energy requirements, from a mere 10 power stations. That means that about 50 power stations can provide all of the UK&#39;s energy needs. Now, while it is unlikely that the UK&#39;s nuclear capacity will expand in time to make the difference in totality, it still means that nuclear is an important option for the future.

I don&#39;t see how my particular location is relevant however. This is a global problem.


nuclear is a corporate solution to extend industrial capitalism and can lead to nuclear proliferation and a situation where countries like the US and Israel have nuclear weapons and Palestine and Cuba are at threat.

We need industrial capitalism in order to have industrial communism.

Being against nuclear power on the grounds of nuclear proliferation is laughable because it&#39;s one of things that everyone fears but hardly anyone gets hurt by. Now compare that with how many people are killed daily as a result of the conventional arms trade and you&#39;ll see that bullets and bombs kill a lot more people than nukes. Nuclear war? The ruling class may be greedy and cruel, but they are not stupid or insane.

I hardly think Cuba and Palestine are in danger of being nuked - both of them are right next to countries they&#39;re being threatened by. As belligerent as US foreign policy is, I don&#39;t think they would cut their nose off to spite their face. Not only that, but killing off all the natives in a nuclear holocaust makes them rather harder to exploit - who will dig up all those resources and work in the fields and sweatshops? Certainly not the Americans or the Israelis&#33; And in any case I would gladly trade both Cuba and Palestine (or any country for that matter) for technological civilisation - we&#39;d lose all of them anyway if we lost technological civilisation.


It isn&#39;t grassroots to have nuclear power and it doesn&#39;t help the poor.

Why do you automatically assume that grassroots = always good? And on what basis do you make that assumption?

I believe that cheap energy does "help the poor" (As if the left was some kind of charity :rolleyes: ). Just how does it help the less better off to have more expensive electricity because you can&#39;t generate as much without nuclear or fossil fuels?


decentralized or locally owned power does.

No it doesn&#39;t, it makes it harder for those who can&#39;t afford to cover their roof in solar panels or put up a few windmills. I certainly couldn&#39;t afford either of those options.


Rosa [email protected]
Is it my fault if you need reminding that scientists are not gods, and have been known to distort the truth, lie and suppress information when it comes to military matters (and nuclear weapons), and profit.

The real question is: why do you need telling this?

Because it&#39;s rather fantastic to hypothesise that every single nuclear engineer and nuclear scientist in the world is lying, especially when you put forward no evidence for such a grandiose claim.


You naive worhippers of science do seem to get riled rather easy.

Wonder why?

You treat it like a religion, and get just as upset as any randon mystic does when your gods are shown to be mortal.

Tut, tut... :rolleyes:

I don&#39;t "worship" science any more than I "worship" engineering or mathematics - I merely recognise just how greatly science has changed our lives, and get upset when people like you abuse it for short-sighted political ends. Don&#39;t mistake my passion for science for worship of same. It&#39;s an easy mistake for someone who values style over substance to make, but you really should know better.


Except the last 60 years of lies. :o

But, hey, who&#39;s counting...?

Wow, a 60-year conspiracy involving thousands of people and only people like Rosa know about it&#33; That just too convenient&#33; :lol: People like you remind me of the Apollo Moon Hoax (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html) and other conspiracy nuts.


Lynx
The nuclear lobby has latched onto CO2 levels in an attempt to drum up business. That is to be expected. That doesn&#39;t mean there is an urgent need to abandon King Coal and emerging technologies for Atomic Blonde

Burning coal for energy, in addition to it&#39;s deleterious effects on the environment, is an incredibly irresponsible waste of much-needed hydrocarbons. Just what do you think we&#39;ll be making plastics, lubricants, polymers etc etc out of when the oil runs out?


Coal is a major component of electricity production and one which is easily scalable.

It&#39;s also dirty as all fuck, and pumps out CO2 like nobody&#39;s business (which is bad in case you haven&#39;t realised) as well as soot, ash, toxic heavy metals and even radioactive isotopes (Which unlike nuclear power is released untreated into the atmosphere)&#33;

[piet11111]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+October 11, 2007 04:59 pm--> (Jazzratt @ October 11, 2007 04:59 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 04:51 pm
The nuclear lobby has latched onto CO2 levels in an attempt to drum up business. That is to be expected. That doesn&#39;t mean there is an urgent need to abandon King Coal and emerging technologies for Atomic Blonde ;)
What is this coal fetish you have all about anyway? Coal is harmful to the environment and people around it in a way that makes even the distorted vision of nuclear power that Rosa has look positively healthy. [/b]
the netherlands are doing an experiment where they put all the nasty stuff like CO2 and other harmfull emissions from coal into depleted gasfields.

that way coal might actually be a "clean" way of generating power.

but personally i prefer nuclear power because its simply more efficient and the negative sides have been blown way out of proportion by irrational greens.
also with the promise of nuclear fusion in the near future its my personal opinion that nuclear is the way to go.

the reason why i prefer the word of scientists over the greens is because the anti-nuclear power crowd have very dubious statistics that are all over the place and its unclear on how they compiled their statistics in the first place.
and then im not even talking about the obvious political agenda that the greens have against nuclear power.

but if anyone here has links to anti-nuclear articles that are not coming from groups like greenpeace or other such reactionary&#39;s then i would really like to read them.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


Because it&#39;s rather fantastic to hypothesise that every single nuclear engineer and nuclear scientist in the world is lying, especially when you put forward no evidence for such a grandiose claim.

You write as if there are no other scientists who doubt the lies you have swallowed.

Typical religionist...



I don&#39;t "worship" science any more than I "worship" engineering or mathematics - I merely recognise just how greatly science has changed our lives, and get upset when people like you abuse it for short-sighted political ends. Don&#39;t mistake my passion for science for worship of same. It&#39;s an easy mistake for someone who values style over substance to make, but you really should know better.

But, your actions belie this cosy view you have of yourself.

You get so cross when anyone questions &#39;scientific&#39; dogma.


Wow, a 60-year conspiracy involving thousands of people and only people like Rosa know about it&#33; That just too convenient&#33; People like you remind me of the Apollo Moon Hoax and other conspiracy nuts.

And do you think that governemnts have been telling nothing but the truth for 60 years?

So, even you believe that a lie can be sustained for 60 years.

And, your analogy with the moon hoax is just another example of your irrationality here.

Keep it up, it is really convincing... :rolleyes:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 11, 2007 05:12 pm
Noxion:


Because it&#39;s rather fantastic to hypothesise that every single nuclear engineer and nuclear scientist in the world is lying, especially when you put forward no evidence for such a grandiose claim.

You write as if there are no other scientists who also doubt the lies you have swallowed.

Typical religionist... :rolleyes:
And you speak as if these scientists represent consensus in the scientific community. It&#39;s quite surprising, considering the number of times you&#39;ve attacked Vanguard for using scientists that disagree with current views on climate change.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jazzy:


And you speak as if these scientists represent consensus in the scientific community. It&#39;s quite surprising, considering the number of times you&#39;ve attacked Vanguard for using scientists that disagree with current views on climate change.

A similar consensus existed over WMD in Iraq - I suppose you believed that too.

I tend to be suspicious of a &#39;scientific&#39; &#39;consensus&#39; when it favours the defense industry; not generally otherwise.

I suspect you are a little more naive though.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:08 pm
Burning coal for energy, in addition to it&#39;s deleterious effects on the environment, is an incredibly irresponsible waste of much-needed hydrocarbons. Just what do you think we&#39;ll be making plastics, lubricants, polymers etc etc out of when the oil runs out?
From coal, then from plants, if need be. The refining of much-needed hydrocarbons into diesel and gasoline to meet transportation needs is a greater waste.

It&#39;s also dirty as all fuck, and pumps out CO2 like nobody&#39;s business (which is bad in case you haven&#39;t realised) as well as soot, ash, toxic heavy metals and even radioactive isotopes (Which unlike nuclear power is released untreated into the atmosphere)&#33;
These are well-known and longstanding issues. They haven&#39;t prevented use of coal in the past or in the present. China&#39;s actions alone suggest this trend will continue.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

[/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+--> (Rosa Lichtenstein)You write as if there are no other scientists who doubt the lies you have swallowed.

Typical religionist...[/b]

Find me a qualified nuclear engineer (or three) who says that modern nuclear power plants are as unsafe or worse than Chernobyl, then we&#39;ll talk.


But, your actions belie this cosy view you have of yourself.

You get so cross when anyone questions &#39;scientific&#39; dogma.

"Is&#33;" "Is not&#33;" How childish. Simply contradicting me doesn&#39;t change the facts.


And do you think that governemnts have been telling nothing but the truth for 60 years?

Ah, a loaded question, one of the dishonest debator&#39;s favourite tools. No, I am not saying that the government have been telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I am saying that I find it hard to believe that every single nuclear engineer and every single person in every single nuclear regulatory body has been telling nothing but lies since day one. Why you seem to conflate regulatory bodies, qualified engineers and the government is a mystery to me.

Basically, your astounding hypothesis requires astounding evidence that you have yet to present.


So, even you believe that a lie can be sustained for 60 years.

What on Earth made you come to that conclusion? I believe that neither the Apollo Moon Hoax or this Giant Nuclear Conspiracy you&#39;ve cooked up have any merit.


And, your analogy with the moon hoax is just another example of your irrationality here.

So you think the Americans didn&#39;t land on the Moon? If so, then the madness truly runs deep. Are the Illuminati putting flouride into your water to control your mind as well? :rolleyes:


Keep it up, it is really convincing... :rolleyes:

As long as you keep up the wacko conspiracy theories and lack of evidence for same, consider yourself well into woo-woo territory. Rather you than me.


A similar consensus existed over WMD in Iraq - I suppose you believed that too.

Wow, apples and oranges anyone? A scientific consensus is reached by totally different means to a political one.


I tend to be suspicious of a &#39;scientific&#39; &#39;consensus&#39; when it favours the defense industry; not generally otherwise.

I suspect you are a little more naive though.

And supporting renewables in the stead of everything else puts money into the pockets of the solar cell industry. What exactly is your point? The weapons trade would still make nukes whatever scientists say, and whatever the enegy policies of a given country. Attempting to curtail the trade in nuclear weapons by opposing civilian nuclear power is laughable.


Lynx
From coal, then from plants, if need be. The refining of much-needed hydrocarbons into diesel and gasoline to meet transportation needs is a greater waste.

Actually, in this globalised world transport is pretty much a necessity. We may be able to live without our personal cars, but we need fuel to run our shipping and railroads, plus maintaining some capability of flight (if nowhere near the ludicrous levels of today) would come in useful.

Using coal to make plastic? Great&#33; Except now the coal is depleting even faster. Not smart.


These are well-known and longstanding issues. They haven&#39;t prevented use of coal in the past or in the present. China&#39;s actions alone suggest this trend will continue.

Just because such issues have been unknown or ignored in the past doesn&#39;t make it right to continue doing so. If everyone decided to follow China&#39;s lead, we&#39;d be more fucked than if every nuclear power station mysteriously went kablooie.

Radiation may be for thousands of years, but CO2, lead, mercury, and other heavy metals are forever.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


Find me a qualified nuclear engineer (or three) who says that modern nuclear power plants are as unsafe or worse than Chernobyl, then we&#39;ll talk.

Who doubts they are safer -- but that is not the same as safe.

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn8810.html

http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html

http://www.sierraclub.org/energysummer/4nu...ecker_op_ed.asp (http://www.sierraclub.org/energysummer/4nuclear/becker_op_ed.asp)

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/07sa.html

http://www.earthhealing.info/CH.pdf

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/07/11...l-dont-need-it/ (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/07/11/thanks-but-we-still-dont-need-it/)

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/11/3761/


"Is&#33;" "Is not&#33;" How childish. Simply contradicting me doesn&#39;t change the facts.

So emotional.

A religionist in all but name...


So you think the Americans didn&#39;t land on the Moon? If so, then the madness truly runs deep. Are the Illuminati putting flouride into your water to control your mind as well?

I passed no opinion on this red herring.

But I note your irrational tone.

However, at least you are consistently irrational. :rolleyes:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is Theft+October 09, 2007 01:39 pm--> (Proper Tea is Theft &#064; October 09, 2007 01:39 pm) Jazz, don&#39;t you think it would be better to direct more funding into researching "green" energy, which doesn&#39;t have the negative impacts on the planet, instead of aiming for nuclear power?
As far as I know, the only problem with solar energy at the present moment is A/ the lack of funding B/ being able to store the energy. [/b]
There are several types of "green" energy. Some, such as wind or hydro, are simply not enough to ever come close to meeting our energy needs. I&#39;m not sure about geothermal, but the problem with that is that it can only be accessed at very specific points on the Earth&#39;s crust.

The only type of "green" energy that can ever come close to meeting our energy needs is solar power, but it is important to realize that solar power is nothing but nuclear fusion at a distance. The Sun is one big nuclear fusion reactor, and the only difference between solar power and nuclear (fusion) power is that nuclear fusion would require us to build a reactor on Earth, whereas with solar power we have a big reactor in the sky (and a very inefficient method of tapping the output of that reactor).

While I&#39;m on the subject, I should point out that nuclear fusion - if we could get a self-sustaining reaction - would be perfectly "green" as well. The fact that there are issues with our current fission reactors (the biggest of which is the creation of radioactive waste) should not deter us from the ultimate goal of getting a working nuclear fusion reactor.

Also, while coal might run out in 200 years, and uranium in 1000, hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. We will have a plentiful supply of fuel for nuclear fusion until the stars themselves die out.


Proper Tea is Theft
solar panels and windmills are not a realistic option
From what I hear, that&#39;s not the case.
I was having a discussion with my friend who said that, apparently, enough energy from the sun reaches the earth each day to power the earth for a year.
And, another thing, is that if we covered half of South Australia (A state in Aus...), we would be able to power the entire planet solely off of Solar power.
I&#39;ll have to do some research into it myself, but that&#39;s just what I heard...[/b][/quote]
The output of the Sun is immense, yes. The problem is actually tapping into that output with any reasonable degree of efficiency. Coating a desert with solar panels might be an option, but it would require an enormous investment (which you&#39;re never going to get in a capitalist economic system), it would cause a logistical nightmare as you&#39;re trying to relay energy from that desert to everyone all over the world, and it would centralize a lot of power in the hands of whoever controls the desert.

Now, I&#39;m not against solar power - far from it - but I do believe that it will have to take second place to nuclear power in the future. It is certainly feasible (from a technological standpoint, but not from a capitalist economic standpoint) to build large fields of solar panels in deserts across the world and use them to generate a substantial fraction of the world&#39;s energy needs. But I highly doubt that a majority of our needs could ever be covered in this way.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+--> (Rosa Lichtenstein)Who doubts they are safer -- but that is not the same as safe.[/b]

How safe is safe? Why not define a standard for how safe nuclear power should be for it to be acceptable?

Without some kind of quantification as to how safe nuclear power "should" be, further debate is impossible.


http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn8810.html

Why is that when a government organisation agrees with what you think, they&#39;re telling the truth, but when they disagree, they must be lying? You can&#39;t have it all your own way.


After a tense internal argument, the UK&#39;s Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) has urged Prime Minister Tony Blair to reject the nuclear option in favour of an "aggressive" expansion of energy efficiency and renewables.

Oh look, a false dilemma. Fancy a government quango to come up with something like that :rolleyes: Despite anti-nuclear campaigners&#39; claims to the contrary, it is entirely possible to have a mixed energy policy.


The advantages of nuclear power as a safe, low-carbon technology are outweighed by disadvantages like uncertain costs, long-lived radioactive waste and the risk of nuclear weapon proliferation, Porritt argues: "The government is going to have to stop looking for an easy fix to our climate change and energy crises," Porritt says. "There simply isn&#39;t one."

Any costs will (or at least should) be mitigated by proper development of the uranium economy, radioactive waste is not in intractable problem, and nuclear proliferation is a false boogeyman. They have no idea what they are talking about.
Nobody, least of all me, is claiming it to be a "quick fix". But I do believe it is the best solution.


But the SDC only arrived at its recommendation by a single vote, with eight of its governing commissioners voting against nuclear power and seven voting in favour. It had drawn up eight detailed studies covering safety, waste, economics and climate change.

Looks like they&#39;re not so stupid after all, and the issue is obviously far from clear-cut. But then, why believe them? They&#39;re part of the lying government, aren&#39;t they Rosa?


The research showed that even if the UK&#39;s existing nuclear capacity were doubled, it would only deliver an 8% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2035. Increases in energy efficiency and renewable energy generation could save more sooner, the SDC concludes. "All the modelling scenarios show it is possible to meet targets for reducing CO2 emissions without nuclear power."

Without seeing how they came to these conclusions, further debate is impossible.


http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html

Yawn, another partisan anti-nuclear group. What reason have I to take them seriously?


http://www.sierraclub.org/energysummer/4nuclear/becker_op_ed.asp

The Sierra Club, oh dear, oh dear. The same question I asked above applies.


http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/07sa.html

A Professor of Social Sciences is the last person I would go to with a question about nuclear power. Next.


http://www.earthhealing.info/CH.pdf

Good grief, you think the arguments made are new? This is getting pathetic.
And you have the utter cheek to call ME irrational&#33; (http://www.earthhealing.info/ecospirit.html) :rolleyes: Why should I take the scientific opinions of eco-spiritualists seriously?


http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/07/11...l-dont-need-it/

More whinging about nuclear waste, which as I stated is not an intractable problem like anti-nuclear activists want to make it out to be. Good look getting rid of nuclear weapons, nothing short of the collapse of industrial civilisation will precipitate that.

I asked for qualified opinions, and I got shit in return. Those links that weren&#39;t outright wackos were simply regurgitating arguments that have been refuted.

Your problem with nuclear power isn&#39;t scientific - it&#39;s ideological.


So emotional.

A religionist in all but name...

Firstly, you ain&#39;t seen nothing if you think I&#39;m being emotional. Secondly, being emotional is not one of the defining characteristics of being a "religionist". Atheists are perfectly capable of having mood swings.

Nice try, but you fail.


I passed no opinion on this red herring.

But I note your irrational tone.

However, at least you are consistently irrational. :rolleyes:

If I&#39;m so irrational, why do you seem to find it so difficult to demonstrate so?

You simply resort to name-calling and rhetorical bullshit instead of backing up what you say. I&#39;ll consider the points you ignored conceeded, thanks.


Edric O
While I&#39;m on the subject, I should point out that nuclear fusion - if we could get a self-sustaining reaction - would be perfectly "green" as well. The fact that there are issues with our current fission reactors (the biggest of which is the creation of radioactive waste) should not deter us from the ultimate goal of getting a working nuclear fusion reactor.

I don&#39;t think anyone here opposes nuclear fusion, not if they&#39;re sane (one would hope). As for waste, that should be much less of a problem than with fission.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:24 pm

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn8810.html

Why is that when a government organisation agrees with what you think, they&#39;re telling the truth, but when they disagree, they must be lying?
:lol: Well observed.

We might soon have a self-described green party* in government in Britain. I wonder what kind of confusion this will cause for the bankrupt, opportunist left...?

* http://www.samizdata.net/blog/~pdeh/Tory_logo.jpg

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:58 pm

Actually, in this globalised world transport is pretty much a necessity. We may be able to live without our personal cars, but we need fuel to run our shipping and railroads, plus maintaining some capability of flight (if nowhere near the ludicrous levels of today) would come in useful.
Yes, it is a necessity, which is why the energy storage problem needs to be solved. Engines burning gasoline or diesel will continue to become more expensive to operate. I won&#39;t even mention kerosene... oops :wub:


Using coal to make plastic? Great&#33; Except now the coal is depleting even faster. Not smart.
AFAIK coal is not used to any great extent to make plastics (although this might change thanks to higher oil prices). The plastics and related industries are not in danger of running out of hydrocarbons for another 200 years, at which point King Coal and Atomic Blonde will be history.

Just because such issues have been unknown or ignored in the past doesn&#39;t make it right to continue doing so. If everyone decided to follow China&#39;s lead, we&#39;d be more fucked than if every nuclear power station mysteriously went kablooie.
Its not about right or wrong but how the energy sector is likely to evolve. Not everyone will follow China&#39;s lead but that is because they are already industrialized. If you want NIC&#39;s to choose nuclear, be prepared to cough up substantial subsidies.


Radiation may be for thousands of years, but CO2, lead, mercury, and other heavy metals are forever.
Nothing is forever. The Earth can heal, and new inventions change the way we view the world and the universe. We&#39;ll just have to agree to disagree on this one - for now&#33;

[Comrade Rage]

The earth&#39;ll heal slowly, but it would be more expedient to dump our trash responsibly.

[socialistfuture]

what are you in the world and where does your power come from?


I reside in the UK, so that means energy is mostly provided by gas and coal. Here are the figures from 2004:

QUOTE (percentages in 2004)
gas – 39.93% (0.05% in 1990)
coal – 33.08% (67.22% in 1990)
nuclear – 19.26% (18.97% in 1990)
renewables – 3.55% (0% in 1990)
hydroelectric – 1.10% (2.55% in 1990)
imports – 1.96% (3.85% in 1990)
oil – 1.12% (6.82% in 1990)


As you can see, nuclear provides nearly 20% of all the UK&#39;s energy requirements, from a mere 10 power stations. That means that about 50 power stations can provide all of the UK&#39;s energy needs. Now, while it is unlikely that the UK&#39;s nuclear capacity will expand in time to make the difference in totality, it still means that nuclear is an important option for the future.

No it doesn&#39;t, it makes it harder for those who can&#39;t afford to cover their roof in solar panels or put up a few windmills. I certainly couldn&#39;t afford either of those options.

i think you will find a lot of areas that are hard to reach rely on decentralized energy - such as parts of mongolia, some pacific islands and places in parts of nepal and so on.

i think you showed how pitiful the UK&#39;s renewables energy generation is.
You assume Nixion that renewables is expensive and limited to windmills and solar. there is also passive solar heating, offshore wind, tidal energy, hydro and undersea wind turbines.

Coal and nuclear power the bulk of the worlds energy, some places like where I live and brasil use mainly or largely hydro - which can be very polluting and environmentally damaging when it is on a vast scale like the Three Georges dam in china and some of the developments in india.

If the amount of investment that went into nuclear and so called &#39;clean&#39; coal went into renewables it would be very affordable. I&#39;ll pass on research and energy plans compiled for places like the UK if u want.

having nuclear in britain is a very serious potential terrorist target and threat. security is one of the key things energy companies want along with secure supply. Brasil constantly has short outs, and sometimes they happen here too. decentralized energy is the most resistant to power outages. all it takes in the city where i live is a crucial part of the grid to get effected and most of it is down. nuclear is on a vast scale and too big for a lot of areas, and it very expensive.

yes noxion, i know you always support the corporations over the grassroots, because your industrial state socialism is so important. any plans for how to clean up all its pollution and function after peak oil and resource depletion really kicks in? are you one of those hydrogen economy dreamers?

hydroelectric is also part of renewables by the way.
pitiful how reliant on coal britain is. did u see the coal power plant get occupied by greenpeace the other day?

[socialistfuture]

l :lol: Well observed.

We might soon have a self-described green party* in government in Britain. I wonder what kind of confusion this will cause for the bankrupt, opportunist left...?

i&#39;d say they&#39;ll sell out and maybe do things like the german one and support the war on afghanistan and nuclear power.

the greens when they suck up to social democrats or conservatives (neo liberal.. types) dont have any spine to them. the greens are best when they supply money and resources to grassroots groups.

shows the weakness of the middle class and the trap that is parliament.
the greens in my country might join with the conservative &#39;national&#39; party. it would prob be the death of them. shows how lacking any possibility of a strong left is here.

[Comrade Rage]

The Greens have pretty much lost their spines in America.

[socialistfuture]

there they have a slightly different playing field as - only the republicans or democrats can form the govt - the beauty of the two party system.

the canada greens has been more successful - even in conservative areas like Ontario.
i think its pretty obvious the greens wont take capitalism on in most places and some are advocates of what they call &#39;green capitalism&#39; while it may have a few uses, it sure as cant fix things. the greens in ireland sold out and supported the m3 motorway that was to go through Tara (celtic sacred site).

ya can&#39;t trust many polititions that go in.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


How safe is safe? Why not define a standard for how safe nuclear power should be for it to be acceptable?

Without some kind of quantification as to how safe nuclear power "should" be, further debate is impossible.

Safe is: No Nukes&#33;


Why is that when a government organisation agrees with what you think, they&#39;re telling the truth, but when they disagree, they must be lying? You can&#39;t have it all your own way.

I merely quoted that source to show you that not all scientists agree, not that I agreed with them, or indeed trusted them, and I did that because you challenged me to find at least one scientist who doubted the rosey view you have been sold.

Don&#39;t tell me you forgot you had challenged me -- have your memory cells been nuked?


Yawn, another partisan anti-nuclear group. What reason have I to take them seriously?

No more than we have to take you pro-nukes seriously.


Your problem with nuclear power isn&#39;t scientific - it&#39;s ideological.

Oh dear, a revolutionary like me with an ideology -- and one that is sceptical of the lies we are constantly fed by the ruling class. I am so ashamed of myself.

Well, let me turn this around:

Your problem with banning nuclear power isn&#39;t in any way socialist - it&#39;s quasi-religious.


Firstly, you ain&#39;t seen nothing if you think I&#39;m being emotional. Secondly, being emotional is not one of the defining characteristics of being a "religionist". Atheists are perfectly capable of having mood swings.

That is reassuring -- to know you quasi-religionists can be emotional too.

But, we already knew that. :rolleyes:


If I&#39;m so irrational, why do you seem to find it so difficult to demonstrate so?

I am in fact letting you do the job for me.

10/10 so far; keep it up&#33; :)


You simply resort to name-calling and rhetorical bullshit instead of backing up what you say.

Aw shucks, I admit it --, but then as a rank amateur name-caller compared to you, I have much to learn.

Do you give lessons?


I&#39;ll consider the points you ignored conceeded, thanks.

Yes, I ignored the point that nuclear power is inefficient.

I am glad you have now conceeded that fact. :P

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ah -- VG1917, the London Times Business editor chips in:


Well observed.

Not so; check out my reply to Noxion.


We might soon have a self-described green party* in government in Britain. I wonder what kind of confusion this will cause for the bankrupt, opportunist left...?

More to the point, what sort of mayhem will it cause among your mates in the City of London? :o

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 11:02 pm
i think you will find a lot of areas that are hard to reach rely on decentralized energy - such as parts of mongolia, some pacific islands and places in parts of nepal and so on.
Most of the places that work on that have much, much lower energy needs than other areas so your claims are ridiculous.


You assume Nixion that renewables is expensive and limited to windmills and solar.

You have a strange concept that renewable energy sources and nuclear power are mutually exclusive. Thankfully the World Nuclear Association and the British Wind Energy Association both disagree.


having nuclear in britain is a very serious potential terrorist target and threat.

No, it really isn&#39;t. The only way it could be remotely possible for a terrorist to harm anyone other than themselves through a nuclear power station would be to get a job there and actively attempt to cause a meltdown and even then it&#39;s not a dead cert they&#39;d harm anyone.


Brasil constantly has short outs, and sometimes they happen here too. decentralized energy is the most resistant to power outages.

You&#39;re fondling the facts with gusto there. All forms of energy are liable to fail and they affect however many things rely on them. The obvious way around this is to have failsafes and backups.


yes noxion, i know you always support the corporations over the grassroots, because your industrial state socialism is so important.

What a laughable mixture of ad hominem and strawman.


hydroelectric is also part of renewables by the way.

Also caused an estimated 884 deaths per Terrawatt-year between 1969 and 1996 as shown in a study by the Paul-Scherrer Institute in Switzerland which surveyed 4290 civil energy accidents. The deaths found for nuclear? 8 (It would have been somewhere around the 60/70 area if non-civil energy deaths were counted).


pitiful how reliant on coal britain is. did u see the coal power plant get occupied by greenpeace the other day?

Nope, and as the whole country failed to grind to a halt I think you&#39;ve just shot yourself in the foot. But congratulations greenpeace on following in Earth First&#33;&#39;s anti-worker footsteps.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Rosa, it is not enough to say that the ruling class have lied in the past, you need to prove that they are doing so in this instance. Why is it in governmental interest to deceive us about the safety of nuclear power? Just answer me properly.

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


Rosa, it is not enough to say that the ruling class have lied in the past, you need to prove that they are doing so in this instance. Why is it in governmental interest to deceive us about the safety of nuclear power? Just answer me properly.

It&#39;s called &#39;national security&#39;, and with respect to defence, they do nothing else but lie.

Again, why is this news to you?

With respect to these b*stards the motto is: guilty until proved innocent...

[BurnTheOliveTree]

It&#39;s called &#39;national security&#39;, and with respect to defence, they do nothing else but lie.

Nuclear power and defence aren&#39;t one and the same, nor are they even especially linked so far as I can see, and it&#39;s really a generalisation to say they only lie with regard to it.

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


Nuclear power and defence aren&#39;t one and the same, nor are they even especially linked so far as I can see, and it&#39;s really a generalisation to say they only lie with regard to it.

Sorry, Burn, but they are.

[Bilan]

Sorry, late reply.


Originally posted by Jazzrat
Nuclear waste spillage carries nothing near the risks of a meltdown. And given all the historical meltdowns have claimed very few lives (the most was at Chernobyl I give the death toll and source in the thread I&#39;ve linked to, I think it was in somewhere around fifty four.) this doesn&#39;t seem like unacceptable risk.


Fair point, I can agree.


That is an entirely fair analysis. What do you propose as an alternative to nuclear though?

I don&#39;t know, I don&#39;t feel as if I&#39;m in the position with my current knowledge on the issue to be able to put forward an adequate solution to the problem.
The one that so far - to me- seems good is the combination of different "Green" (blergh) energies. Not immediately, though, for more research needs to be put into these industries when it comes to more efficiently obtaining energy, as well as storing it.
The other being Nuclear Fusion. Though, I haven&#39;t done enough research on this, so I&#39;m not to sure as of yet.


I guess I walked into that,

:P


but in all seriousness even with the sun and wind on Australia&#39;s coastal regions (I&#39;m going to presume there is loads, although I was mainly inland when I went there and it was a few years back now.) the proposal is very risky. Not only would you need perfect weather conditions every day but you&#39;d have to deal with the pollutants used in making Solar Panels (as well as the expensive parts that need replacing regularly), the constant maintainance that wind turbines require and the sheer inefficiency of wave.


This is true, and that&#39;s why I propose that we put more research into this technology so that it may be improved - particularly around the storing of the energy so weather conditions don&#39;t have to be *perfect*, as such.


What do you think? :lol: I love it and I want it to manifest in human form so I can have its babies :wub:

hehe.
I meant, as opposed to regular nuclear power.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is [email protected] 12, 2007 02:57 pm
The other being Nuclear Fusion. Though, I haven&#39;t done enough research on this, so I&#39;m not to sure as of yet.

Fusion is a possibility and it&#39;s certainly coming along but it&#39;ll be a goodly few years before we can see it practically applied.


This is true, and that&#39;s why I propose that we put more research into this technology so that it may be improved - particularly around the storing of the energy so weather conditions don&#39;t have to be *perfect*, as such.

We already have a very efficient and relatively clean source of energy. The IAEA produced data in 200 which made a very interesting graph, even given the possiblity of number fiddling it still demonstrates some surprising facts:

http://www.freedomforfission.org.uk/img/co2.jpg



hehe.
I meant, as opposed to regular nuclear power.

Fusion knocks fission for six every time. It&#39;s even more efficient, it can last even longer and the fuels are lying around our solar system just waiting to be harvested.

[Cult of Reason]

I don&#39;t "worship" science any more than I "worship" engineering or mathematics - I merely recognise just how greatly science has changed our lives, and get upset when people like you abuse it for short-sighted political ends. Don&#39;t mistake my passion for science for worship of same. It&#39;s an easy mistake for someone who values style over substance to make, but you really should know better.


But, your actions belie this cosy view you have of yourself.

You get so cross when anyone questions &#39;scientific&#39; dogma.[/QUOTE]

Questioning is fine, such as "what causes rainbows to appear?" or "how do you justify your assertion that global warming is a result of sun activity?"

However, what you are doing is NOT questioning. What you are doing is simply exclaiming "You are wrong, I am right, the government lies, always&#33;" while providing no credible evidence to back up your assertion. On the other hand, NoX and Jazz have made reasonable points (you may argue that they are flawed, though you have not) which you have failed to answer or even acknowledge. Meanwhile, you just repeat yourself.

You, Rosa, are the dogmatist.


Sorry, Burn, but they are.

A direct contradiction, with no explanation as to how Burn&#39;s point was wrong. How disappointing.


With respect to these b*stards the motto is: guilty until proved innocent...

That is just as stupid as the opposite, especially since, in most cases, the ruling classes have little reason to directly lie. The reason is simple: they are diffuse, distributed among countries, organisations and schools of thought., not monolithic. They need to be able to communicate with each other effectively in order to keep the system running, and that requires their communication with each other to be either honest or a case of easily reading between the lines. What they communicate to each other is usually public, too, due to their distribution, as it is in most cases infeasible and simply not worth it to encrypt or conceal their messages in all but the most weak and obvious ways.

Often times it is easy to spot a lie as it simply conflicts with what large sections of the ruling class have been saying from before it.


Safe is: No Nukes&#33;

The ultimate in puerile naiveté. Scrapping nuclear power completely will not disarm the huge numbers of nukes that already exist, which for most of us will be in the stockpiles of either our own States or of their allies, for whom there is little incentive to proliferate beyond having a little extra leverage. The only ones that really need to be watched are those like Iran or North Korea that challenge the status quo. All the nuclear powers largely agree with eachother, with the exception of India and Pakistan, so there is pretty much zero chance of a nuclear war.

You might as well say: safe for electricity is no electrocutions, or safe for food is no salmonella. OMFG, the eggs are out to get you&#33;


Oh dear, a revolutionary like me with an ideology -- and one that is sceptical of the lies we are constantly fed by the ruling class. I am so ashamed of myself.

It would be more accurate to say that you are being idealistic, and not in any way materialistic, in your assertions.


Well, let me turn this around:

Your problem with banning nuclear power isn&#39;t in any way socialist - it&#39;s quasi-religious.

Care to explain yourself beyond a bald statement?


I am in fact letting you do the job for me.

10/10 so far; keep it up&#33; smile.gif

Ironically, it is you who is coming across as inane idealist, ignoring all argument that deviates from your view. The ultimate in irrationality.


Aw shucks, I admit it --, but then as a rank amateur name-caller compared to you, I have much to learn.

Do you give lessons?

You do indeed have much to learn: their name-calling is actually relevant and enforced by your own actions, while yours are total non-sequiturs.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Sorry, Burn, but they are.

If you say so. :rolleyes:

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


If you say so.

And even if I do not...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I am sorry Haraldur, it is not easy to read your post since you seem to have developed a love/hate relation with the &#39;quote&#39; function.

But here goes:


You, Rosa, are the dogmatist.

On the contrary I am questioning ruling-class dogma.


However, what you are doing is NOT questioning. What you are doing is simply exclaiming "You are wrong, I am right, the government lies, always&#33;" while providing no credible evidence to back up your assertion. On the other hand, NoX and Jazz have made reasonable points (you may argue that they are flawed, though you have not) which you have failed to answer or even acknowledge. Meanwhile, you just repeat yourself.

And you just repeat them.

Why is it that over this dogma, you accept the government&#39;s case?

I merely point out that over this issue they have always lied -- but if you now naively believe such liars, is that my fault?


A direct contradiction, with no explanation as to how Burn&#39;s point was wrong. How disappointing.

They have lied to us now for nigh on 60 years. If you are ignorant of this, that suggests you are in no positiion to pass an informed comment.


That is just as stupid as the opposite, especially since, in most cases, the ruling classes have little reason to directly lie. The reason is simple: they are diffuse, distributed among countries, organisations and schools of thought., not monolithic. They need to be able to communicate with each other effectively in order to keep the system running, and that requires their communication with each other to be either honest or a case of easily reading between the lines. What they communicate to each other is usually public, too, due to their distribution, as it is in most cases infeasible and simply not worth it to encrypt or conceal their messages in all but the most weak and obvious ways.

For a socialist, they are not opposites. We begin from a position of distrusting the committe for running the general affairs of the ruling class -- the government.

I am surprised you need reminding&#33;

And your attempt to defend/&#39;explain&#39; their (international) manipulation of opinion is no less worrying.

Sure they have to make their rotten system work -- but they care not one jot about the interests/welfare of the majority.


The ultimate in puerile naiveté. Scrapping nuclear power completely will not disarm the huge numbers of nukes that already exist, which for most of us will be in the stockpiles of either our own States or of their allies, for whom there is little incentive to proliferate beyond having a little extra leverage. The only ones that really need to be watched are those like Iran or North Korea that challenge the status quo. All the nuclear powers largely agree with eachother, with the exception of India and Pakistan, so there is pretty much zero chance of a nuclear war.

Not quite -- I am modelling myself on you, so there is hope for me yet. :)

And you missed the point: No Nukes means what it says -- not no more nukes, and still less not no more nuclear weapons -- just no nukes, period.

I can understand if that is too radical a view for you, but it is nonetheless the only safe option.


It would be more accurate to say that you are being idealistic, and not in any way materialistic, in your assertions.

So you say; but you have bought into ruling-class ideology. Hence you are scarcely unbiased.


Care to explain yourself beyond a bald statement?

It&#39;s based on the quasi-religious faith one or two of you have in &#39;scientific opinion&#39;.


Ironically, it is you who is coming across as inane idealist, ignoring all argument that deviates from your view. The ultimate in irrationality.

Yes, dogmatists like you used to burn us heretics at the stake. :rolleyes:


You do indeed have much to learn: their name-calling is actually relevant and enforced by your own actions, while yours are total non-sequiturs.

Brilliant, yet another name-caller prepared to help out an rank amateur like me&#33;

OK: how can I become a better name-caller? You are the expert; I am the novice; advise away... :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein
On the contrary I am questioning ruling-class dogma.

A dogmatic opposition to nuclear power, to the point that you oppose it no matter how safe it is, is not "questioning dogma"; it is the unmistakeable mark of the ideologue.

It&#39;s also interesting that you don&#39;t apply the same standards of rigorous safety to all other industries as you do to nuclear industries, even when they damage the environment and endanger human health much more so.


And you just repeat them.

Why is it that over this dogma, you accept the government&#39;s case?

I merely point out that over this issue they have always lied --

And thus far you have not proved that they have done nothing but lie for the past 60 years.

Now prove it&#33;

Prove that every nuclear regulatory agency, every nuclear engineer and every nuclear scientist has said nothing but lies for the past 60 years.

Of course you can&#39;t. If what you said was true, it would require not only the entire nuclear industry to lie, but the whole of the medical profession as well, since if nuclear technology is as dangerous as you claim it is there would have to be a massive cover-up (or systematic lying about the causes) of cancers and tumours, and of the safe levels of radiation.

That&#39;s the problem with massive conspiracies of your kind, Rosa. It requires that everyone is in on it, and that quite simply isn&#39;t possible. That&#39;s why I provided the link to the page dissecting the Moon hoax - most of the reasons the Apollo landing couldn&#39;t be hoaxed are just as applicable to the nuclear industry. Obviously you didn&#39;t even read it.


They have lied to us now for nigh on 60 years. If you are ignorant of this, that suggests you are in no positiion to pass an informed comment.

Again, you need to prove it, not just say so and expect us to accept it without evidence.


For a socialist, they are not opposites. We begin from a position of distrusting the committe for running the general affairs of the ruling class -- the government.

What you seem to be ignoring is that there is more than one government in the world, and many of them have conflicting aims. Exposing the lies of another government is a good way for one government to gain a massive propaganda victory, for example.

The ruling class is far from monolithic, and you ignoring that will not change the facts.


And you missed the point: No Nukes means what it says -- not no more nukes, and still less not no more nuclear weapons -- just no nukes, period.

And just how do you intend to completely abolish nuclear technology forever, in all it&#39;s forms? Quite apart from the fact that products of nuclear technology (especially radioisotopes) is not just used in weapons and energy generation, but in many other industries as well including medicine, scientific research, resource prospecting, space exploration and so on.

Science comes as a complete package. You can&#39;t have one thing while not having another - that&#39;d be like banning fractional distillation of crude oil but still wanting internal combustion engines.

Furthermore, banning technology only serves to give the edge to those who flout the rules. Destroy all nuclear weapons and technology, and as soon as the first nuclear bomb or reactor is built we&#39;re back to square one. It&#39;s a pointless waste of time and energy that could be better spent putting that technology to good use.


So you say; but you have bought into ruling-class ideology. Hence you are scarcely unbiased.

And what "ruling class ideology" would that be? There is nothing inherently capitalist about nuclear power, in fact all science and technology is politically neutral, and to claim otherwise is to mark you as a fanatic on the same level as creationists (who politicise evolution) and eco-fundies (who politicise the environment).


It&#39;s based on the quasi-religious faith one or two of you have in &#39;scientific opinion&#39;.

There is a reason we respect scientific opinion above all others - it has a proven track record. Neither politics, faith nor philosophy developed the computer, built the sanitation systems that prevent so much disease, advanced medicine from the realm of superstition and folklore, etc etc.

That alone is reason enough to respect scientific opinion over that of pressure groups like Greenpeace and the hysterical opinions of ideologues and anti-nuclear campaigners.


Yes, dogmatists like you used to burn us heretics at the stake.

Persecution complex much? :rolleyes: Spare us the histrionics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


A dogmatic opposition to nuclear power, to the point that you oppose it no matter how safe it is, is not "questioning dogma"; it is the unmistakeable mark of the ideologue.

It really will not do to repeat yet more dogma in a vain attempt to exhonerate yourself.


It&#39;s also interesting that you don&#39;t apply the same standards of rigorous safety to all other industries as you do to nuclear industries, even when they damage the environment and endanger human health much more so.

We are debating this pernicious industry. You need to focus a little more.

[What I think of other industries we can leave to other threads.]


And thus far you have not proved that they have done nothing but lie for the past 60 years.

Now prove it&#33;

Prove that every nuclear regulatory agency, every nuclear engineer and every nuclear scientist has said nothing but lies for the past 60 years.

No need to -- this stuff originates from the ruling class, and for a half-way decent socialist that should be enough to condemn it.

As I said earlier, these b*stards are guilty until proven innocent.

Now, why am I having to tell you all this?

[You are a socialist of some sort, aren&#39;t you?]


That&#39;s the problem with massive conspiracies of your kind, Rosa. It requires that everyone is in on it, and that quite simply isn&#39;t possible. That&#39;s why I provided the link to the page dissecting the Moon hoax - most of the reasons the Apollo landing couldn&#39;t be hoaxed are just as applicable to the nuclear industry. Obviously you didn&#39;t even read it

You obviously think the ruling class just blunder about the place, and never plan anything, don&#39;t you?

So, when it came to, say, invading Iraq, quite fortuitoiusly, and by sheer coincidence, the US, UK, Spanish and Australian governments all just happened to agree on WMD?

You are sadder than I thought...


Again, you need to prove it, not just say so and expect us to accept it without evidence.

Again, you need to recall which side of the class war you are on.


What you seem to be ignoring is that there is more than one government in the world, and many of them have conflicting aims. Exposing the lies of another government is a good way for one government to gain a massive propaganda victory, for example.

Well, of course, when it comes to this issue, all of them want nuclear weapons, so they are all going to agree.


And just how do you intend to completely abolish nuclear technology forever, in all it&#39;s forms? Quite apart from the fact that products of nuclear technology (especially radioisotopes) is not just used in weapons and energy generation, but in many other industries as well including medicine, scientific research, resource prospecting, space exploration and so on.

I do not intend to abolish anything -- I am not all that influential you know. :rolleyes:

I must admit, it is rather flattering that you seem to have a rather inflated view of my political and economic clout. :)

However, as a good Marxist, it is enough for me to let the majority decide in a classless society.

Until then, we oppose it.


Science comes as a complete package. You can&#39;t have one thing while not having another - that&#39;d be like banning fractional distillation of crude oil but still wanting internal combustion engines.

You are a rather naive soul aren&#39;t you?

Do you think that ideology has no influence on science? :o

[We saw that in the Lysenko thread -- you&#39;d have been a Lysenkoist in the USSR with your attitude&#33;]


Furthermore, banning technology only serves to give the edge to those who flout the rules. Destroy all nuclear weapons and technology, and as soon as the first nuclear bomb or reactor is built we&#39;re back to square one. It&#39;s a pointless waste of time and energy that could be better spent putting that technology to good use.

That does not stop us opposing it.

Again, with that attitude, you&#39;d never support a single pay strike, for example. I can just hear you now "Well, you go for a wage rise, and they just put up the prices..."

So, you are a naive defeatist. :o :o :o


And what "ruling class ideology" would that be? There is nothing inherently capitalist about nuclear power, in fact all science and technology is politically neutral, and to claim otherwise is to mark you as a fanatic on the same level as creationists (who politicise evolution) and eco-fundies (who politicise the environment).

Omce more, why do I have to complete your socialist education?

You are really going to have to start thinking for yourself. You can&#39;t keep relying on me to bail you out.

[Clue -- defence. ;) ]

Now, come on&#33;&#33; Think&#33;&#33; :angry:


There is a reason we respect scientific opinion above all others - it has a proven track record. Neither politics, faith nor philosophy developed the computer, built the sanitation systems that prevent so much disease, advanced medicine from the realm of superstition and folklore, etc etc.

I am all for science, I just do not worship it like you.


That alone is reason enough to respect scientific opinion over that of pressure groups like Greenpeace and the hysterical opinions of ideologues and anti-nuclear campaigners.

You see: anyone who questions your naive faith is &#39;hysterical&#39;.


Persecution complex much? Spare us the histrionics.

Oh, you mean like this:


and the hysterical opinions of ideologues and anti-nuclear campaigners

Yes, I really mustn&#39;t copy you... :P

[madcat]

I&#39;m for nuclear power since now it produce less pollution than fossil fuel plants.But Nuclear fission power plants still need mining uranium.I hope fusion plants will be ready soon.Finding new inexhaustible energy sources and technology progress is the most important thing for humanity.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein
It really will not do to repeat yet more dogma in a vain attempt to exhonerate yourself.

Opposing nuclear power regardless of how safe it is is a prime example of being dogmatic. You&#39;re also starting to repeating yourself, which is boring and annoying.


We are debating this pernicious industry. You need to focus a little more.

[What I think of other industries we can leave to other threads.]

I&#39;m pointing out your hypocrisy and double standards. I don&#39;t hear you calling for total opposition to the mining industry in general, which kills more people and pollutes a lot more than the nuclear industry.


No need to -- this stuff originates from the ruling class, and for a half-way decent socialist that should be enough to condemn it.

Your position requires that the ruling class is manipulating every nuclear engineer and scientist, as well as every nuclear regulatory agency, into lying and have been doing so for the past 60 years. That&#39;s quite an extraordinary claim, which requires some extraordinary evidence to go with it.

You can&#39;t expect anyone with an ounce of reason to take your claims seriously if you cannot support them.


As I said earlier, these b*stards are guilty until proven innocent.

Now, why am I having to tell you all this?

[You are a socialist of some sort, aren&#39;t you?]

My politics are based on reason, not orthodoxy. The ruling class lies for a reason, not out of sheer perfidity.


You obviously think the ruling class just blunder about the place, and never plan anything, don&#39;t you?

Strawman. I said that the ruling class was not homogenous and that as a result they have conflicting aims. That does not rule out any kind of planning or collusion if the situation demands it.


So, when it came to, say, invading Iraq, quite fortuitoiusly, and by sheer coincidence, the US, UK, Spanish and Australian governments all just happened to agree on WMD?

You are sadder than I thought...

The ruling class&#39;s lies about the true reason for invading Iraq are easily proved. You still need to give evidence that the ruling class is engaged in a massive conspiracy involving the entire nuclear industry and ancilliary industries.


Again, you need to recall which side of the class war you are on.

The class war will be won with truth, not lies.

Now, where&#39;s that evidence that I asked for?


Well, of course, when it comes to this issue, all of them want nuclear weapons, so they are all going to agree.

If the ruling class wants nuclear weapons, they are going to get them, regardless of what science says.


I do not intend to abolish anything -- I am not all that influential you know.

I must admit, it is rather flattering that you seem to have a rather inflated view of my political and economic clout.

However, as a good Marxist, it is enough for me to let the majority decide in a classless society.

Until then, we oppose it.

This begs the question of just why you are opposing nuclear power. If you (and your fellow anti-nuclear activists) do not hope to change anything, does that not make your protests an empty gesture, in addition to being a futile waste of time?


You are a rather naive soul aren&#39;t you?

Do you think that ideology has no influence on science?

Ideology does influence science, but ultimately non-ideological science wins out, as Lysenko demonstrated. 60 years is enough time for any ideological bias in nuclear science to be exposed.


[We saw that in the Lysenko thread -- you&#39;d have been a Lysenkoist in the USSR with your attitude&#33;]

I find it hilarious that you, the "good Marxist" would think me a potential Lysenkoist.

I got some news for you: Marxism isn&#39;t the end all and be all of everything.


That does not stop us opposing it.

Again, with that attitude, you&#39;d never support a single pay strike, for example. I can just hear you now "Well, you go for a wage rise, and they just put up the prices..."

So, you are a naive defeatist.

Apples and oranges, Rosa. Pay strikes concern a single element of capitalism and have worked in the past (where as banning a technology EG printing, has a history of failure), but banning an entire field of science is another kettle of fish entirely.


Omce more, why do I have to complete your socialist education?

You are really going to have to start thinking for yourself. You can&#39;t keep relying on me to bail you out.

[Clue -- defence. ]

Now, come on&#33;&#33; Think&#33;&#33;

So what is inherently capitalistic about nuclear technology?


I am all for science, I just do not worship it like you.


That alone is reason enough to respect scientific opinion over that of pressure groups like Greenpeace and the hysterical opinions of ideologues and anti-nuclear campaigners.

You see: anyone who questions your naive faith is &#39;hysterical&#39;.

Accusing others of being hysterical does not make one a faith-head. Respecting scientific opinion over that of pressure groups is not the same as worship. Stop being so fucking dense. :rolleyes:

[ComradeR]

Damn Rosa do you listen to yourself? You sound like those fucking new world order conspiracy nutters.
Nuclear power has got it&#39;s problems but I see no reason why it shouldn&#39;t be used at lest until fusion is perfected.

[Wilfred]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 01:36 pm
Damn Rosa do you listen to yourself? You sound like those fucking new world order conspiracy nutters.
Nuclear power has got it&#39;s problems but I see no reason why it shouldn&#39;t be used at lest until fusion is perfected.
To defend Rosa, nuclear has so many problems, that we shouldn&#39;t use it at all. The various forms of renewable energy, wind, solar, hydro-electric and others, are better. They produce less pollution, and will be available in the future in contrast to U-235.
Just for reference, fusion, as developed in ITER, is also not limitless it is limited by the amount of Li-6 available.
Furthermore even if technologically possible it will be fucking expensive.
And any nutter here who claims that wind- and solarpower are intermittent can tell us all how to shut down and activate a nuclear plant in 15 minutes.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

To defend Rosa, nuclear has so many problems, that we shouldn&#39;t use it at all.

The problems with nuclear power are far from unsolvable.


The various forms of renewable energy, wind, solar, hydro-electric and others, are better. They produce less pollution, and will be available in the future in contrast to U-235.

They also don&#39;t provide enough energy for today&#39;s need, let alone tomorrow&#39;s, and by the time we run out of fissionables we&#39;ll almost certainly have developed working fusion reactors.

The waste products of nuclear power plants are highly manageable in comparison to competing non-renewables.


Just for reference, fusion, as developed in ITER, is also not limitless it is limited by the amount of Li-6 available.

Just because something isn&#39;t limitless doesn&#39;t mean we shouldn&#39;t use it. Besides, once we get the hang of D-T fusion, other types of fusion will doubtless be developed, which require different isotopes. Once we get pure H fusion up and running, we&#39;ll be in the money as far as energy is concerned because hydrogen is one of the most common elements in the universe.

And of course, we&#39;ll need a high energy civilisation if we are to ever hope of leaving this planet.


Furthermore even if technologically possible it will be fucking expensive.

No expense should be spared in maintaining civilisation.


And any nutter here who claims that wind- and solarpower are intermittent can tell us all how to shut down and activate a nuclear plant in 15 minutes.

And what has how long it takes to shut down a nuclear plant got to do with the unreliability of solar and wind? It will rarely be necessary to shut down a nuclear reactor.

[cubist]

Wow this is still open,

As i was then i am still now. there is without doubt no better source of sustainable energy.

obviously im biased becuase both myself and my father have worked in the industry, but i know about the safety risks i have seen the secenes from chernobyl many dont get too and the near miss in britain in the 1950&#39;s but

those are old times, The AGR reactors developed in the UK are more than 75% safer than the old PWR reactors, they aren&#39;t subject to over heatign in times of drought either,

We have been perfecting these reactors for some 15-20 years and only america is joining the band wagon at present but the world will have no choice if it wishes to have reliable consistant source of energy.


the ones in britain dont even operate at 40% of there potential and they provide 25% of the countries power.

[Wilfred]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:21 pm

To defend Rosa, nuclear has so many problems, that we shouldn&#39;t use it at all.

The problems with nuclear power are far from unsolvable.


The various forms of renewable energy, wind, solar, hydro-electric and others, are better. They produce less pollution, and will be available in the future in contrast to U-235.

They also don&#39;t provide enough energy for today&#39;s need, let alone tomorrow&#39;s, and by the time we run out of fissionables we&#39;ll almost certainly have developed working fusion reactors.

The waste products of nuclear power plants are highly manageable in comparison to competing non-renewables.


Just for reference, fusion, as developed in ITER, is also not limitless it is limited by the amount of Li-6 available.

Just because something isn&#39;t limitless doesn&#39;t mean we shouldn&#39;t use it. Besides, once we get the hang of D-T fusion, other types of fusion will doubtless be developed, which require different isotopes. Once we get pure H fusion up and running, we&#39;ll be in the money as far as energy is concerned because hydrogen is one of the most common elements in the universe.

And of course, we&#39;ll need a high energy civilisation if we are to ever hope of leaving this planet.


Furthermore even if technologically possible it will be fucking expensive.

No expense should be spared in maintaining civilisation.


And any nutter here who claims that wind- and solarpower are intermittent can tell us all how to shut down and activate a nuclear plant in 15 minutes.

And what has how long it takes to shut down a nuclear plant got to do with the unreliability of solar and wind? It will rarely be necessary to shut down a nuclear reactor.
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/05/67600
http://www.solarbuzz.com/FastFactsIndustry.htm
So will you retract your first claim that they don&#39;t provide enough energy?
Your other remarks also show a distinct lack of education.
If I could find those links within a few minutes with google, then it should be obvious to other people that you don&#39;t know what you are talking about.

[Lynx]

Nuclear is designed for grid base load. Because of transmission infrastructure, it doesn&#39;t compete against solar or wind installations - those are intended for peak loads and local distribution.

[MarxSchmarx]

Nuclear is designed for grid base load. Because of transmission infrastructure, it doesn&#39;t compete against solar or wind installations - those are intended for peak loads and local distribution.

umm... Otherway around, right? That is, the current infrastructure IS grid based which is why nuclear is so competitive economically compared to solar or wind. There will need to be a whole reconfiguration of the power distribution networks if solar or wind are to be profitable.

Ergo, to hell with the profit motive.

[Lynx]

No, they do not compete because their contribution to the grid are different. You have base load vs. peak, and location vs load. If you build a Nuclear or Coal fired plant, you locate them close to where the energy (load) is needed or where they can be connected to existing HV transmission lines. Solar and wind power are used in what is termed remote locations.

Nuclear competes with Coal or Gas in the US. For American States that buy power from Quebec or Manitoba, you can add Hydroelectricity as a competitor.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So will you retract your first claim that they don&#39;t provide enough energy?

Potential energy is not the same as the amount of energy that can actually be harvested. In other words, let us wait and see if these findings actually amount to something. On the other hand, nuclear is a proven technology, not reliant on certain environmental conditions.


Your other remarks also show a distinct lack of education.

If my other remarks are so "uneducated", why don&#39;t don&#39;t you give them the sound thrashing that they deserve? Or are your remarks merely hot air and bluster?


If I could find those links within a few minutes with google, then it should be obvious to other people that you don&#39;t know what you are talking about.

If it&#39;s so easy, why don&#39;t you address the rest of my post?

[Wilfred]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:55 pm

So will you retract your first claim that they don&#39;t provide enough energy?

Potential energy is not the same as the amount of energy that can actually be harvested. In other words, let us wait and see if these findings actually amount to something. On the other hand, nuclear is a proven technology, not reliant on certain environmental conditions.


Your other remarks also show a distinct lack of education.

If my other remarks are so "uneducated", why don&#39;t don&#39;t you give them the sound thrashing that they deserve? Or are your remarks merely hot air and bluster?


If I could find those links within a few minutes with google, then it should be obvious to other people that you don&#39;t know what you are talking about.

If it&#39;s so easy, why don&#39;t you address the rest of my post?
Wind and solar are also proven technologies. I never mentioned waste products, you did.
Fusion is extremely expensive, and productioncapacity is limited. It also requires more educated manpower, so that is not good. Windmills are more easily repaired.

Only idiots who don&#39;t know biology and have seen too many sf mention leaving this planet.
As far as sparing no expense, does that mean we can throw all your female relatives in a bonfire?
Demand is variable too and you can&#39;t vary the output of a nuclear plant easily over short timespans, so what do you do with that energy?
And now right back at ya, you simply claim that it is necessary without providing proof with regards to the availibility of U-235, the amount we could mine per unit of time, the energy return on energy invested, the available production capacity to actually build nuclear plants, the political effects of having large centrally maintained systems in contrast to producing power more decentralized.
One should also not forget that solar and wind are proven technologies and *nobody* knows if fusion can even produce a net energy output continuously under reasonable circumstances. Also the design proposed for fusion power plants makes it really easy to produce nuclear weapons grade plutonium, and unstable corrupt governments are not going to disappear soon.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Wind and solar are also proven technologies.

And nuclear happens to be more effecient. It takes thousands of wind turbines to equal one nuclear reactor. Not one plant - one reactor.


Fusion is extremely expensive, and productioncapacity is limited.

At the moment. All technologies used be expensive have limited production capacity at some point. The point is that you develop those technologies so that they become cheaper and more widely available.


It also requires more educated manpower, so that is not good.

Why is that not good? The more educated a workforce is, the better.


Windmills are more easily repaired.

And just how easy do you think it will be to repair and maintain the thousands upon thousands of wind turbines required to supply the world&#39;s energy needs? And what about the energy needed to get the workers and spare parts to the actual turbines?


Only idiots who don&#39;t know biology and have seen too many sf mention leaving this planet.

Only idiots who know nothing of earth&#39;s history or astronomy think this planet will always be inhabitable.


As far as sparing no expense, does that mean we can throw all your female relatives in a bonfire?

Non sequiters are a poor substitute for debate.


Demand is variable too and you can&#39;t vary the output of a nuclear plant easily over short timespans, so what do you do with that energy?

Easy. You shift it somewhere else, that&#39;s the point of having a national/continental grid. What are you going to do with your renewables-only system on a cloudy, calm day which also happens to have peak demand?


And now right back at ya, you simply claim that it is necessary without providing proof with regards to the availibility of U-235, the amount we could mine per unit of time, the energy return on energy invested, the available production capacity to actually build nuclear plants, the political effects of having large centrally maintained systems in contrast to producing power more decentralized.

Quoting the parts of my post you are addressing really helps. With regards to mining and EROEI, fissionable fuels due to the atomic nature of the energy produced are inherently more effecient than the chemical reactions provided by coal, gas and oil (Hint: it&#39;s something to do with the fact that nuclear bombs are more powerful than chemical explosives of equivalent weight).

And the political effects of centralised power grids? France and the UK seem to have no problems linking up their respective power grids.


One should also not forget that solar and wind are proven technologies and *nobody* knows if fusion can even produce a net energy output continuously under reasonable circumstances.

Solar and wind are proven, yes, but not good enough in the circumstances as I have pointed out.

As for fusion, it&#39;s something with a big potential payoff, and considering the relatively low cost of fusion research (&#036;13.1 billion for the ITER project, compared to the &#036;244.8 billion cost of the Joint Strike Fighter), that we&#39;d be mad to pass up the opportunity.


Also the design proposed for fusion power plants makes it really easy to produce nuclear weapons grade plutonium, and unstable corrupt governments are not going to disappear soon.

Er, what? Don&#39;t you mean fission? All the proposed fusion reactor designs I know involve no heavy fissionables whatsoever.

And in any case, the boogeyman of nuclear proliferation is just that, a boogeyman - historically the conventional weapons trade has been far more injurious to human life than the nuclear arms trade. But I don&#39;t see any movements to ban dynamite.

[MarxSchmarx]

they do not compete because their contribution to the grid are different

OK, I see what you were getting at. My apologies for misunderstanding, I thought you were basically arguing solar and wind will be competitive with nuclear and outcompete it. Clearly this wasn&#39;t what you were saying. So yes, I agree with your point.


At the moment. All technologies used be expensive have limited production capacity at some point. The point is that you develop those technologies so that they become cheaper and more widely available.

This is the logical conclusion of the rebuttle to the limited availability of U-235. As soon as somebody finds an economical way to conduct fusion, most current concerns of nuclear power (like waste materials, limited uranium, etc...) seem to go out the window.

I mean, Wilfred, where do you imagine the energy to build the gazzillions of wind farms coming from?


Why is that not good? The more educated a workforce is, the better.

The problem is the more technical training required, the more room there is for specialization. How would you square this with the vision of a socialist society?

Now, to be fair, solar and wind proponents face the same problem...

Also, where will the energy to build the gazzillions of windmills required come from? Coal? hydro? Oil?

To the extent that the damaging emissions generally come not from power plants but from cars, factories, etc..., it would seem that building more environmentally friendly offices, cars, and consumer goods, rather than power plants per se, is the solution. Right now, the only economically viable way to provide the power to produce huge numbers of environmentally sound products and capital seems to be nuclear...

[Cult of Reason]

The problem is the more technical training required, the more room there is for specialization. How would you square this with the vision of a socialist society?

Eh? What are you on about? Since when did Socialism demand that people be jacks of all trades? This is nonsensical.

[marcocosm]

I voted no against nuclear power...if i could i would eliminate all weapons from the face of the earth...that way we would fight our wars with our fists...but thats impossible n it will never happen :ph34r:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 04:53 pm
I voted no against nuclear power...if i could i would eliminate all weapons from the face of the earth...that way we would fight our wars with our fists...but thats impossible n it will never happen :ph34r:
How naive can you get? Eliminating nuclear power will not eliminate nuclear weapons.

[Wilfred]

Sigh, I will only make a few short remark, perhaps it will help the lurkers, you lot don&#39;t seem to be persuaded by arguments.
- Wind has a high energy-return-on-energy-invested, only hydro-electric (dams) is better.
In particular it is better than that of nuclear fission.
- With respect to fusion, what do you think one can do with lots of neutrons flying around?

Some people here should understand the concept of efficiency, the mere fact that U-235 has a high energy-density does not imply a hign energy efficiency.

[MarxSchmarx]

i don&#39;t want to get OT but:


Since when did Socialism demand that people be jacks of all trades?

I misspoke. My point was that specialization should be considered as a cost of using nuclear energy, not a benefit.

If the choice was between a technology that demanded super-specialization (like nuclear power) and that doesn&#39;t demand as much specialization (like wind power), that more people in the community could work on, etc..., then all else being equal the decision should be made for the one requiring less technical specialization. This allows more people to meaningfully participate in the operation and decisions about maintaining the source of power.



Wind has a high energy-return-on-energy-invested

Do you have a source for this? It&#39;s not that I don&#39;t believe you, I&#39;m just curious.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 08:25 pm
Sigh, I will only make a few short remark, perhaps it will help the lurkers, you lot don&#39;t seem to be persuaded by arguments.
- Wind has a high energy-return-on-energy-invested, only hydro-electric (dams) is better.
In particular it is better than that of nuclear fission.
- With respect to fusion, what do you think one can do with lots of neutrons flying around?

Some people here should understand the concept of efficiency, the mere fact that U-235 has a high energy-density does not imply a hign energy efficiency.
Yes, I was going to ask what "effeciency" means.

My views on this topic haven&#39;t changed (I&#39;m against promoting Nuclear power).

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 05:06 pm
Yes, I was going to ask what "effeciency" means.


efficiency

1. The production of the desired effects or results with minimum waste of time, effort, or skill.
2. A measure of effectiveness; specifically, the useful work output divided by the energy input in any system.

[Lynx]

Excellent.
A process that wastes minimal energy is efficient.
A process that produces a lot of energy has nothing to do with efficiency.

[AAFCE]

For it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Wilfred+--> (Wilfred)Sigh, I will only make a few short remark, perhaps it will help the lurkers, you lot don&#39;t seem to be persuaded by arguments.[/b]

If you can&#39;t be bothered to debate, it&#39;s more honest if you simply say so than if you hide behind bullshit excuses.


- Wind has a high energy-return-on-energy-invested, only hydro-electric (dams) is better.

And just what makes you come to this conclusion? It takes energy to build and maintain all those thousands of turbines, which will not always be operating at peak capacity.


In particular it is better than that of nuclear fission.

How so? You don&#39;t have to build nearly as many nuclear plants as you do turbines. Admittedly a turbine is less complex than a nuclear plant, but then you have to build and maintain so many of them, and they will be a lot more spread out than a nuclear plant, meaning that more energy is expended getting workers and spare parts there.


- With respect to fusion, what do you think one can do with lots of neutrons flying around?

Er, capture them? Use them to make things radioactive, for whatever reason that might be useful? Stop treating engineering problems as if they were unsolvable physics conundrums.


Some people here should understand the concept of efficiency, the mere fact that U-235 has a high energy-density does not imply a hign energy efficiency.

Yes it does, actually. It means you can use less U235 to do more work.


Originally posted by [email protected]
My views on this topic haven&#39;t changed (I&#39;m against promoting Nuclear power).

Well, considering that you advocate using more coal, :rolleyes: that&#39;s kind of expected from you.


MarxSchmarx
If the choice was between a technology that demanded super-specialization (like nuclear power) and that doesn&#39;t demand as much specialization (like wind power), that more people in the community could work on, etc..., then all else being equal the decision should be made for the one requiring less technical specialization. This allows more people to meaningfully participate in the operation and decisions about maintaining the source of power.

You know, I don&#39;t have to have a mechanical engineering degree to understand the polluting effects of the internal combustion engine. Nor do I have to know how to drive. One can still make meaningful, informed decision about something without having a degree on whatever it is.


Excellent.
A process that wastes minimal energy is efficient.
A process that produces a lot of energy has nothing to do with efficiency.

It rather depends on what you do with that energy no?

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 04:51 pm
It rather depends on what you do with that energy no?
Yes, through greater efficiency (on the consumption side) and through energy storage.

[MarxSchmarx]

You know, I don&#39;t have to have a mechanical engineering degree to understand the polluting effects of the internal combustion engine. Nor do I have to know how to drive. One can still make meaningful, informed decision about something without having a degree on whatever it is

Whoever said a degree, conferred by an imperialist/capitalist "educational" institution, is the sole arbiter of anything?

Of course we need no degrees to pass judgment on the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine.

But with regards to operating a nuclear power plant, Homer Simpson notwithstanding you need some basic understanding about what&#39;s supposed to go on. The same is NOT true for solar power. I know, b/c my degree is NOT in mechanical engineering (or any engineering) and yet I set up my cousin&#39;s house for this stuff. Talk about a straw man. I wouldn&#39;t touch a nuclear generator with the proverbial ten-foot pole.

[marcocosm]

Originally posted by NoXion+October 24, 2007 05:44 pm--> (NoXion @ October 24, 2007 05:44 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2007 04:53 pm
I voted no against nuclear power...if i could i would eliminate all weapons from the face of the earth...that way we would fight our wars with our fists...but thats impossible n it will never happen :ph34r:
How naive can you get? Eliminating nuclear power will not eliminate nuclear weapons. [/b]
ok fuck face...i know that...i answered the question against nuclear power...and then stated my own opinion on a totally different topic...so peace

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by dustinthewind+October 26, 2007 03:04 pm--> (dustinthewind @ October 26, 2007 03:04 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 05:44 pm

[email protected] 24, 2007 04:53 pm
I voted no against nuclear power...if i could i would eliminate all weapons from the face of the earth...that way we would fight our wars with our fists...but thats impossible n it will never happen :ph34r:
How naive can you get? Eliminating nuclear power will not eliminate nuclear weapons.
ok fuck face...i know that...i answered the question against nuclear power...and then stated my own opinion on a totally different topic...so peace [/b]
Okiday, it&#39;s not unreasonable. though, to expect that you may have a reason for being anti-nuclear power. Maybe you don&#39;t but that simply means you&#39;re a fuckwit,

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by MarxSchmarx
Whoever said a degree, conferred by an imperialist/capitalist "educational" institution, is the sole arbiter of anything?

Don&#39;t speak as if all degrees were equally worthless. They are not and you damn well know so.


But with regards to operating a nuclear power plant, Homer Simpson notwithstanding you need some basic understanding about what&#39;s supposed to go on.

Operating a nuclear power plant certainly requires extensive knowledge of nuclear engineering. But operating a nuclear power plant and making policy decisions regarding nuclear power plants are not the same thing.


The same is NOT true for solar power. I know, b/c my degree is NOT in mechanical engineering (or any engineering) and yet I set up my cousin&#39;s house for this stuff. Talk about a straw man. I wouldn&#39;t touch a nuclear generator with the proverbial ten-foot pole.

Yet no doubt you have some knowledge of electrical safety. Otherwise, you would have have likely electrocuted yourself. Were nuclear reactors as compact and widely available as solar panels, and the safety rules with regard to radiation as ingrained into the common consciousness as those with regard to electricity, people would be able to install those.

Thankfully, although installing and operating a nuclear reactor requires a lot of knowledge, this is more than compensated by the fact that a single nuclear reactor can serve a lot more households than a single solar panel.

[piet11111]

for those that are against nuclear technology because it can be used for weapons you are all fucking morons

currently only the most wealthy nations can afford to have a nuclear weapons program and it also requires an infrastructure that is almost impossibly to hide.

there is however an obvious alternative that is cheaper and much easier to hide.

biological weapons on the industrial scale can be developed in any country that is capable of producing its own pesticides and medicine.
and its almost impossible to tell if those facility&#39;s are producing biological weapons or medicine.

if we would apply the same argument that anything that can be used for the development of weapons should be banished, then we should banish modern medicine aswell.


if this sounds as nonsense to those that want to get rid of nuclear technology then you know how you sound to me.

[marcocosm]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+October 27, 2007 02:40 am--> (Jazzratt @ October 27, 2007 02:40 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 03:04 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 05:44 pm

[email protected] 24, 2007 04:53 pm
I voted no against nuclear power...if i could i would eliminate all weapons from the face of the earth...that way we would fight our wars with our fists...but thats impossible n it will never happen :ph34r:
How naive can you get? Eliminating nuclear power will not eliminate nuclear weapons.
ok fuck face...i know that...i answered the question against nuclear power...and then stated my own opinion on a totally different topic...so peace
Okiday, it&#39;s not unreasonable. though, to expect that you may have a reason for being anti-nuclear power. Maybe you don&#39;t but that simply means you&#39;re a fuckwit, [/b]
i love u :ph34r:

[abbielives!]

Nuclear power is no more than a way to subsidize industry.
I object to it for 2 reasons, it is not safe and the nature of the waste produced

[Coffee Mug]

I voted no; Mainly because I live in America and the thought of Nuclear Power taken irresponsibly or to be taken lightly eventually by the public nearly sparks paranoia.

As efficient, affective, and safe it may be I don&#39;t think the Modern American Population and Government could regulate, provide training, or advertise it to a degree where fear-mongering of Nuclear Disaster wouldn&#39;t play a role in elections and irrational fear.

I can&#39;t make an accurate or decision for the rest of The World; no amount of reading or knowledge is a substitute for simple experience of other Political Systems and Population.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by abbielives&#33;@November 08, 2007 12:56 am
Nuclear power is no more than a way to subsidize industry.
If by that you mean power everything, then yes.


I object to it for 2 reasons, it is not safe

Yes it is. Read the thread, hunchbrain.


and the nature of the waste produced

Yeah, it&#39;s quite dangerous compared to all the Radon pumped out by coal stations, eh?

[Kami]

I&#39;m strongly for, if only to get us off the fossil fuels in the short term. I view it as the power source with the most potential for advancement, and very few reasons not to use it.

[Right Hawk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 08:50 am
This poll sucks.
I am for everyone having nuclear power but the US of fucking A because they are the only ones who had to be stupid and blow someone up with it.

United States, you have lost your nuclear privleges, now pay your electrec bill do not pass go or collect 200 dollars.
"U.S. safety programs are the best in the world."

-Former Mayor of Chernobyl

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Right Hawk+November 14, 2007 08:33 pm--> (Right Hawk @ November 14, 2007 08:33 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2006 08:50 am
This poll sucks.
I am for everyone having nuclear power but the US of fucking A because they are the only ones who had to be stupid and blow someone up with it.

United States, you have lost your nuclear privleges, now pay your electrec bill do not pass go or collect 200 dollars.
"U.S. safety programs are the best in the world."

-Former Mayor of Chernobyl [/b]
"Non-Sequiters are pointless spam"

-NoXion

[farleft]

Voted yes.

[RedStarOverChina]

It can&#39;t possibly be worse than gasoline, can it?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071126/ts_af...bEWMP4cNHFPzWQA (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071126/ts_afp/francechinaenergynuclearcompanycontractareva_07112 6061601;_ylt=AnWaEF34EUyB3bEWMP4cNHFPzWQA)

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by Vargha [email protected] 02, 2006 09:19 am
Yes here for the time being . I cannot find another effective alternative so yes.
hamster power should be considered
by breding large amounts of hamsters and aving large power fields filled with wheels and turbines we can power entire cities of these litle critters

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by NoXion+November 16, 2007 06:29 pm--> (NoXion @ November 16, 2007 06:29 pm)
Originally posted by Right [email protected] 14, 2007 08:33 pm

[email protected] 02, 2006 08:50 am
This poll sucks.
I am for everyone having nuclear power but the US of fucking A because they are the only ones who had to be stupid and blow someone up with it.

United States, you have lost your nuclear privleges, now pay your electrec bill do not pass go or collect 200 dollars.
"U.S. safety programs are the best in the world."

-Former Mayor of Chernobyl
"Non-Sequiters are pointless spam"

-NoXion [/b]
non-sequitor*

[lvleph]

I didn&#39;t vote. I actually avoided this thread, but alas I couldn&#39;t stay out.

My credentials:
US Navy, Nuclear Operator (EM3) (http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/navyjobs/navyjobs2/blemn.htm)
Nevada Test Site (http://www.nv.doe.gov/nts/default.htm), Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture (http://www.stoller-navarro.com/), Groundwater Modeler.

Even with all my knowledge and experience I cannot say one way or another if I support nuclear power.

The waste is a big problem. Currently, the only strategy to deal with waste is to bury it. This is problematic, because it can contaminate groundwater. One of the biproducts is C14 which is highly mobile in groundwater. This makes it very difficult to model its transport over long periods of time. However, compared to the other biproducts of fission the halflife of c14 is relatively short (~5700 yrs) which is a good thing. Then there is the problem with the other biproducts that have millions of years halflife. It is very difficult to guarantee that this elements will not contaminate groundwater over long periods of time. Additionally, there are many many unknowns that make modeling transport of these constituents very difficult.

On the topic of safety. When water is used as a coolant, the reactor is inherently stable. Water has multiple purposes in a nuclear reactor. It is used as a coolant, which transfers heat from the reactor to a steam generator. The steam then passes through a turbine to produce electricity. The other purpose of water in a reactor is to act as a moderator. That is, it manages the reflection of neutrons back into the reactor. These neutrons are what sustains the nuclear reaction. When the water heats up the density of water decreases then the water in turn scatters less neutrons back into the reactor. The water then cools down, the density increases, and more neutrons are scattered back into the reactor. This allows for reactor stability and prevents a melt down from occurring.

Additionally, rods are used to control reactor power. If there are certainly problems that occur during reactor operation in which the reactor becomes supercritical (power is increasing, don&#39;t let that term scare you) and it is unwanted for the operating condition (makes things unsafe) the rods drop to the bottom of the reactor core (scram). This allows the reactor to become subcritical and reactor power will decrease. This setup is pretty stable and safe. It is the way reactors in the USA are built.

Now someone made a comment about nuclear missiles or bombs. Let me dispel one myth about nuclear power. The fuel, in general, used in a reactor is completely different than that used for missiles or bombs. A reactor cannot explode using less than weapons grade uranium or plutonium. That is, it can only have a steam explosion, when steam expands really fast it make what ever encases it explode (water is incompressible).

[La Zora]

I am against the use of nuclear power because it is a dangerous an dirty way of producing energy. As we all could learn from the past and history, you can&#39;t exclude accidents and abuse.

I think that it should be an aim to subsidize alternative energy-sources like solar or wind energy&#33;

[Wilfred]

http://www.stormsmith.nl/
Can the nuclear fanboys respond?
Furthermore google for Dr. Gregor Czisch for a viable alternative (wind).

[Tweecore]

I live in Australia. Australia has 40% of the world&#39;s uranium reserves, and its mining industry wields extreme political influence with both major political parties. The federal government has recently signed a free trade deal with the US, and specific uranium trade deals with a number of other states which possess civilian and military nuclear technology. It has simultaneously launched a military invasion of Aboriginal land, in order to secure mining rights to the vast uranium reserves concentrated on this land.

Simply put, the global demand for uranium is giving rise to a new phase in the long and bloody genocide of Aboriginal people in Australia.

So, I&#39;m against anything which drives up the global demand for uranium, including the expansion of nuclear power. The purported merits of the technology don&#39;t even enter the picture.

[Wilfred]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 02:33 pm
I live in Australia. Australia has 40% of the world&#39;s uranium reserves, and its mining industry wields extreme political influence with both major political parties. The federal government has recently signed a free trade deal with the US, and specific uranium trade deals with a number of other states which possess civilian and military nuclear technology. It has simultaneously launched a military invasion of Aboriginal land, in order to secure mining rights to the vast uranium reserves concentrated on this land.

Simply put, the global demand for uranium is giving rise to a new phase in the long and bloody genocide of Aboriginal people in Australia.

So, I&#39;m against anything which drives up the global demand for uranium, including the expansion of nuclear power. The purported merits of the technology don&#39;t even enter the picture.
Nicely put. I&#39;m glad there are people here who see the downsides of nuclear power for the little people.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2008 10:01 am
Nicely put. I&#39;m glad there are people here who see the downsides of nuclear power for the little people.
Not to mention the lack of electrical transmission infrastructure for billions of people in the 3rd world.

In the future, more power will be created from energy efficiency (reduced consumption) than from our current trend of &#39;growth&#39;. Saving 1 GW is equivalent to creating 1 GW.

[MarxSchmarx]

In the future, more power will be created from energy efficiency (reduced consumption) than from our current trend of 'growth'.

There are of course improvements in efficiency that can be made in places like China, the U$A or Zimbabwe.

But even efficiency has its limits. Countries like Japan have been making their infrastructure "more efficient" for decades and improvements in efficiency have essentially plateaued. And that was only because Japan had exhausted all its conventional energy generation means and had the wealth to invest in improving efficiency.

The fact of the matter is, for economic development a reliable, large-scale regular non-polluting energy source is needed. As has been noted, this need not be nuclear, but expecting improvements to come solely through efficiency doesn't solve any long-term resource problems.

[Wilfred]

There are of course improvements in efficiency that can be made in places like China, the U$A or Zimbabwe.

But even efficiency has its limits. Countries like Japan have been making their infrastructure "more efficient" for decades and improvements in efficiency have essentially plateaued. And that was only because Japan had exhausted all its conventional energy generation means and had the wealth to invest in improving efficiency.
No this is not true, but I am just as lazy as you people here to find stuff to support my claims. Especially rich countries , think OESO, can do lots to improve efficiency. Think building houses which get their heat from the inhabitants, more railroads in stead of cars and plains.


The fact of the matter is, for economic development a reliable, large-scale regular non-polluting energy source is needed. As has been noted, this need not be nuclear, but expecting improvements to come solely through efficiency doesn't solve any long-term resource problems.

Well you need both and a combination of sun, wind and exisiting hydro would suffice nicely.

[jake williams]

Nuclear is horrible (at least fission is), but everything else is so much worse. With the possible exception of climate change, petroleum/energy is probably the biggest issue this century, period. We don't have the luxury of being picky.

Uranium, of course, is fairly short-term, and dangerous. But we'll have to take what we can get.

[Clarkykestrel]

I am most definetly pro nuclear. "Nuclear" is seen as a bit of a buzz word for destruction so nuclear energy has got a bad reputation. France is said to get as much 80% of its power from Nuclear reactors and it also has the cleanest air in Europe and some of the cheapest prices for electricity.

[Wilfred]

I am most definetly pro nuclear. "Nuclear" is seen as a bit of a buzz word for destruction so nuclear energy has got a bad reputation. France is said to get as much 80% of its power from Nuclear reactors and it also has the cleanest air in Europe and some of the cheapest prices for electricity.
But against what are you comparing here? Solar also doesn't generate pollution. Have you looked at future resources of U-235? The efficiency of the entire life-cycle of nuclear power plants?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I have changed my mind on this, and am hesitantly pro-nuclear. The hesitation is partially because I know little of the science of it, and partially because I anticipate something akin to the pharmaceutical industry happening; The profit motive will override safety concerns, and we'll find ourselves in a right mess.

-Alex

[ironguy]

i am for it, but as long as it is in moderation. i don't want to really like the idea of begging Africa or any other country for that matter for nuclear ore. i think we can make America energy independent in at least 8 years if we really pulled our resources. i know its possible.

PEACE

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm against.
all sources of power are wasteful and inefficient creates tension between nations. we are better not to have any at all.
rewilding WOOOOO

You're a goddamn idiot. If the natural state of being is so perfect, why did we lift ourselves out of it? Is it because, perhaps, it fucking sucks to be the passive victim of unthinking, uncaring natural forces that are, ultimately, inimical to the existance of all life?


Solar also doesn't generate pollution.

Solar also has an utterly shit energy density. And nuclear power works at night.