Because of current reasons.....


PDA

View Full Version : Because of current reasons.....


lavazza
02-20-2010, 09:48 AM
Obama is willing to build new nuclear power plants to satisfy the americans need of electricity. The current conservative German government is rejecting the get off of nuclear power (that should happen until like 2020), the red-green government initiated in the beginning of the century. France gets nearly 90% of its electricity out of nuclear power. Sweden, Slovakia (not to mention the Ukraine) ... had incidents in the last 25 years.

As the whole forum has become quiet boring lately, I try to start a maybe controverse topic..... Whatīs the punksī opinion on the use of nuclear power as electricity? (Please donīt start to talk Ahmadinedschad here, thatīs pointless)

Nuclear power is a technology that produces little CO2 in this case environmental friendly, I still oppose it, as it is dangerous as hell. The final storage of nuclear waste isnīt anywhere near a save solution. There are incidents in nearly any country where the operating company claims itīs save.
So this should be a start, I hope you join........

Edit: This should be a question for the punk forum users, the give me an image of what you think....

hawk_kst
02-20-2010, 09:53 AM
Why should this be aimed at Punks!? I think it's probably in the wrong forum even though you've slyly tried to aim it at a genre =P
I think Nuclear power is pretty good considering the lack of CO2 it emmits but yeah your right, the crap left over is pretty damned dangerous, I think they should try and find better ways of storage...

RockThe40oz
02-20-2010, 10:11 AM
It's a mixed bag. On one hand, it doesn't use up much in the ways of natural, non-renewable resources, while creating immense amounts of energy. On the other hand, waste disposal has no solution other than "let's hide it for 250 years"

The concern with safety is that most of the incidents occur because of operator error. Most of the incidents are contained and don't expose anybody to excess radiation (typical exposure is less than that which you get from natural sources in a year).

So, in conclusion... if they find a way to break down the waste into harmless substances... and implement more fool-proof safety features... I could fully support it. At this point, though, we should be putting money into researching renewable energy sources.

DempseyPunk
02-20-2010, 12:13 PM
It's a mixed bag. On one hand, it doesn't use up much in the ways of natural, non-renewable resources, while creating immense amounts of energy. On the other hand, waste disposal has no solution other than "let's hide it for 250 years"

The concern with safety is that most of the incidents occur because of operator error. Most of the incidents are contained and don't expose anybody to excess radiation (typical exposure is less than that which you get from natural sources in a year).

So, in conclusion... if they find a way to break down the waste into harmless substances... and implement more fool-proof safety features... I could fully support it. At this point, though, we should be putting money into researching renewable energy sources.
Well said.

RockThe40oz
02-20-2010, 12:46 PM
what I meant to say was
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee302/punkasfunk420/OiPolloi-NuclearPowerCostsTheEarth.jpg
Oi Oi Oi!

lolmnt
02-20-2010, 12:53 PM
I had a good reason against Nuclear Power in my environmental science class last year, but I can't remember exactly what it was. Something about the amount of usable uranium not being enough to support our needs for a long amount of time or something like that.

skatinpunk
02-20-2010, 02:14 PM
i agree with rockthe40oz, i feel that if there is a much safer and convenient way, it would not be problem at all and could definitely help america. but if it just continues to be used in a dangerous way, i am totally against it.

charliezard!
02-20-2010, 02:19 PM
I think I'm for it. I don't know everything about the hazards of nuclear power, but, as far as I know, it would be great for the country if we continued to pursue it. Cheaper and more efficient energy is a good thing.

edit: eh. After some more review of the cons of nuclear power, I'd say I'm against it for the most part... which kinda sucks because it's an amazing energy source. :(

SKAtastic7770
02-20-2010, 03:53 PM
I currently live awfully close to a nuclear power plant, so I guess whether or not more are built doesn't really affect my safety. I think its a good way to get energy and it is usually not a problem, but god forbid there is a problem. I'd rather see more funding toward renewable energy, nuclear power isnt going to solve the global energy problem, it is only delaying it.

ratmblink123
02-20-2010, 04:10 PM
It's a mixed bag. On one hand, it doesn't use up much in the ways of natural, non-renewable resources, while creating immense amounts of energy. On the other hand, waste disposal has no solution other than "let's hide it for 250 years"

The concern with safety is that most of the incidents occur because of operator error. Most of the incidents are contained and don't expose anybody to excess radiation (typical exposure is less than that which you get from natural sources in a year).

So, in conclusion... if they find a way to break down the waste into harmless substances... and implement more fool-proof safety features... I could fully support it. At this point, though, we should be putting money into researching renewable energy sources.
:golfclap:

axeslash
02-21-2010, 02:10 AM
Nuclear power is awesome.

Very efficient, and I'm not the kind of person to worry about a little nuclear waste. I'd rather have nuclear waste than the amount of polluting chemicals fossil fuels put out.

First person to talk about a nuclear explosion happening at a power plant gets laughed out of this thread.

neidnarb11890
02-21-2010, 03:10 AM
A natural gas power plant in my state exploded a couple weeks ago.

lavazza
02-21-2010, 10:28 AM
First person to talk about a nuclear explosion happening at a power plant gets laughed out of this thread.

Iīm not the first peron who likes to dispute with you, but why? (Homer Simpson alone is responsible for three of them. But they nuclear meltdowns also occured in Pennsylvania, Slovakia, France, Switzerland ....)

Furthermore the Irish Sea is so polluted with nuclear waste from Sellafield where half of western europe dumbs its waste that until now like 250kg of Plutonium is agglomerated in the sediments of the sea.

RockThe40oz
02-21-2010, 11:17 AM
First person to talk about a nuclear explosion happening at a power plant gets laughed out of this thread.
The threat of a "nuclear explosion" ala Hiroshima is obviously not the worry. The threat of a plant meltdown, explosion of the hydrogen bi-product and the expulsion of radioactive gases into the atmosphere is the real concern. In 95% of reactor mishaps, it's a matter of the workers getting exposed to more radiation than they probably should, and no solid link is created between the incident and increased cancer deaths. Hell, even the Three Mile Island incident didn't have that big of a fallout.

I'd say overall there's no more of a chance for something to go wrong at a nuclear power plant than at a natural gas power plant. The problem is, when something goes wrong at a nuclear power plant, it has a much greater effect.

The disposal of waste isn't a showstopper for me, since I don't think this will be a long-term solution anyways. We have enough useless desert to bury this sh*t in. If the safety measure got more fool-proof (which they have gotten in the past 30 years), I could still support it if it meant we had to bury some barrels somewhere.

travs2448
02-21-2010, 11:27 AM
There is actually a scientificly proven way to recycle the spent nuclear fuel rods, so there isnt hardly any waste only one problem. The libral A-holes in our government have made it illegal for whatever reason.

RockThe40oz
02-21-2010, 11:41 AM
There is actually a scientificly proven way to recycle the spent nuclear fuel rods, so there isnt hardly any waste only one problem. The libral A-holes in our government have made it illegal for whatever reason.
You're an idiot and have no idea what you're talking about.

Show me where this magic recycling method is.

lavazza
02-21-2010, 12:20 PM
The disposal of waste isn't a showstopper for me, since I don't think this will be a long-term solution anyways. We have enough useless desert to bury this sh*t in. If the safety measure got more fool-proof (which they have gotten in the past 30 years), I could still support it if it meant we had to bury some barrels somewhere.

Thereīs a repository in Germany, the government in the 80s ignored those who said itīs not secure to leave the barrels there. Lately they found out that the way to stock the barrels meant to put throw them into the old salt mine (Schacht Asse II) not caring for the fact that the barrels are rusting.
Now they donīt really know how to solve that problem. Including this to the fact that for hard nuclear waste NO country in the world has found any solution I oppose that thereīs enough desert.

RockThe40oz
02-21-2010, 12:44 PM
I was being somewhat facetious in my statement. Like I said, though, I wouldn't expect it to be a long-term viable solution, so underground storage could probably be a decent option until they determined how to truly process it.

Also, who was the genius that used copper barrels and threw them into a salt mine? That doesn't make any sense. Shouldn't they be stainless steel drums?

lavazza
02-21-2010, 02:13 PM
I bet Helmut Kohl thought "Made in Germany" printed on it is enough

anarkee
02-21-2010, 03:03 PM
I had a good reason against Nuclear Power in my environmental science class last year, but I can't remember exactly what it was. Something about the amount of usable uranium not being enough to support our needs for a long amount of time or something like that.

Ultimately this, but I can remember the scares of Three Mile Island. And I'm surprised no one has gone on at length about Chernobyl. They are still tracking the ultimate damage from Chernobyl. After working for the public sector for over a decade, I have serious concerns about the governments of the world regulating anything that gets in the way of making money and supporting the economic structure of a country.

RockThe40oz
02-21-2010, 03:11 PM
That's the thing, though... 3MI was just that... a scare... Same with almost all nuclear power "disasters"

People have a reason to be afraid of nuclear meltdown, since Chernobyl and the one in France were both major disasters that cost many lives. Most of the time radioactive material just spills into a reservoir designed specifically for that. Chernobyl happened 25 years ago, and was due to a failed test of a new safety feature. Technology and engineering have come a long way in 25 years, and I believe we have the capability to contain any meltdown and isolate it to the facility. It'll still probably **** up the workers, but I guess it's a case of "don't work at a nuclear facility if you're afraid of radiation"

anarkee
02-21-2010, 04:44 PM
I don't doubt the technology, but often the private companies that run these plants are ultimately interested in the bottom line, even if it means compromising regulatory standards and safety regulations.

Take a company like Kerr-McGee in the US. The whole Karen Silkwood issue aside, they have an amazing capability to buck safety and EPA standards and not comply until they absolutely are forced to in court. They, like many corporate energy providers, believe its better to ask forgiveness and pay the fines in a court case than have their workforce, the environment or the local population safety in mind and put in the necessary technology to keep it safe.

And the ratio of EPA inspectors to the broad swath of potential violations they have to look into is staggering. The RCRA and other regulatory laws in the US are pretty clear, but there has never been enough resources to enforce the regulations. Many times companies will only get caught when someone either whistleblows or an accident has occurred, or they get caught by a random "inspection".

BrianApocalypse
02-21-2010, 04:56 PM
Do you know where nuclear power lies?

I said it starts. and ends with you.

neidnarb11890
02-21-2010, 05:00 PM
:golfclap:

TN_BOOTBOY
02-21-2010, 08:56 PM
I think that its dangerous as hell. Sure, you might not ever have a meltdown, but if it did happen? Big problems for years and years. As far as the whole co2 argument, who cares? We all expel co2 when we breathe. Co2 gets absorbed by plants and they in turn produce oxygen. Its a cycle. Logging companies have even noticed that due to the larger amounts of co2 in the air tress are growing back faster than usual. There's other carbons that are a lot worse that no one ever mentions. Co2 is a ploy by large corps lobbying the govt. to make more money using scare tactics. Wind, sun and hydro are the way to go. They're free.

SuperBlob
02-21-2010, 08:57 PM
I still think my wind powered car would work. Generates energy as it moves, why shouldn't it work? >_>

axeslash
02-21-2010, 10:43 PM
I think that its dangerous as hell. Sure, you might not ever have a meltdown, but if it did happen? Big problems for years and years. As far as the whole co2 argument, who cares? We all expel co2 when we breathe. Co2 gets absorbed by plants and they in turn produce oxygen. Its a cycle. Logging companies have even noticed that due to the larger amounts of co2 in the air tress are growing back faster than usual. There's other carbons that are a lot worse that no one ever mentions. Co2 is a ploy by large corps lobbying the govt. to make more money using scare tactics. Wind, sun and hydro are the way to go. They're free.Leave it to a skinhead to not understand how anything works.

I can't even properly counter your argument. Clearly you haven't yet understood that just because things produce carbon dioxide and plants use it doesn't mean they are breaking down the carbon dioxide fast enough to maintain a near-constant global level. You ever see those "global carbon dioxide" graphs? You notice how it doesn't slow down at all and keeps increasing and increasing?

Wind energy is costly to develop and maintain. Hydroelectric is neat until it destroys a lot of the life in the river of whatever it is damming up. Solar energy isn't anywhere near as efficient as you apparently think.

And to sum up my feelings on your argument I laughed hard when you said "There's other carbons that are a lot worse that no one ever mentions." Clearly you don't know much about chemistry. Or anything for that matter.

travs2448
02-21-2010, 10:43 PM
You're an idiot and have no idea what you're talking about.

Show me where this magic recycling method is.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=43294

axeslash
02-21-2010, 10:44 PM
Many times companies will only get caught when someone either whistleblows or an accident has occurred, or they get caught by a random "inspection".You say this as if this isn't the way nearly everything works that is regulated on a large scale.

rushpython
02-21-2010, 10:45 PM
i think we need to make Large scale hydrolisis

axeslash
02-21-2010, 10:54 PM
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=43294At no point does it say "virtually no waste" or "hardly any waste." It is only more efficient at limiting harmful by-products. Breeder reactors are pretty nifty but they are hardly the miracle you claim they are.

You fail and I laugh at you.

axeslash
02-21-2010, 10:59 PM
i think we need to make Large scale hydrolisisI am dying to hear how you think that will work.

Against Him?
02-21-2010, 11:07 PM
I was trained for the worked on the operation of a nuclear reactor on submarines and carriers.
Nuclear reactors are incredibly save when operated correctly. The problems that arose in places like chernobyl and 3 mile island were caused by gross incompetence of the staff and flaws in the design of the plant. More Disasters of that nature are very unlikely to happen if the plants are up to the standards of the ones run in the US.

So only problem with Nuclear power is the waste product which has to be buried in a mountain somewhere and sit there for like 100k years.
I suggest we start shipping that stuff of into space. Fire it on a collisions course to the moon. Would at least give our space program something useful to do.

neidnarb11890
02-21-2010, 11:18 PM
Yeah, my old man worked on nuclear subs back in his Navy days.

SuperBlob
02-21-2010, 11:36 PM
I suggest we start shipping that stuff of into space. Fire it on a collisions course to the moon. Would at least give our space program something useful to do.
Surely the sun would be more logical?

neidnarb11890
02-21-2010, 11:39 PM
Put that shit on Pluto, it's not even a planet!

Against Him?
02-22-2010, 01:37 AM
Surely the sun would be more logical?

lol that's actually what I meant. :llama:

nashawa
02-22-2010, 05:03 AM
Ultimately this, but I can remember the scares of Three Mile Island. And I'm surprised no one has gone on at length about Chernobyl. They are still tracking the ultimate damage from Chernobyl. After working for the public sector for over a decade, I have serious concerns about the governments of the world regulating anything that gets in the way of making money and supporting the economic structure of a country.

A friend of mine was living in Chernobyl during the meltdown, he moved to Kiev immediately afterwards before ultimately moving to Canada. According to him, the city is still a ghost town.

I still think my wind powered car would work. Generates energy as it moves, why shouldn't it work? >_>

Coupled with an hybrid electric battery and regenerative breaking, it could possibly work.

lavazza
02-22-2010, 08:10 AM
An example for a "secure" storage: The Soviet Union made experiments with chemical and biological weapons on one of the islands in the Aral Sea. They ignored the toxic stuff as it would never leave the island. Due to the exploitation of Amurdarja and Syrdarya the Aral Sea lost its frontal flows, partly or as a whole and now the island has become a peninsula.

I suggest we start shipping that stuff of into space. Fire it on a collisions course to the moon. Would at least give our space program something useful to do.

remember Atlantis? the spaceshuttle?

I think that its dangerous as hell. Sure, you might not ever have a meltdown, but if it did happen? Big problems for years and years. As far as the whole co2 argument, who cares? We all expel co2 when we breathe. Co2 gets absorbed by plants and they in turn produce oxygen. Its a cycle. Logging companies have even noticed that due to the larger amounts of co2 in the air tress are growing back faster than usual. There's other carbons that are a lot worse that no one ever mentions. Co2 is a ploy by large corps lobbying the govt. to make more money using scare tactics. Wind, sun and hydro are the way to go. They're free.

apple seeds contain hydrogen cyanide.....so it cannot be toxic :rolleyes:
I didnīt know socialisation of a "first world" country could damage you so much

RockThe40oz
02-22-2010, 08:20 AM
Yeah, my old man worked on nuclear subs back in his Navy days.
My dad was on nuclear subs for 20 years. Cool.

As far as the argument of "Well, they're just circumvent regulation to make money"....

I don't think anybody is stupid enough to risk a nuclear plant meltdown to save a few bucks. Not every company is out there to risk the lives of people just to make more money. Some even go above and beyond federal regulations to make sure they have a "margin of error" built into their processes.

axeslash
02-22-2010, 10:41 AM
Yeah, my old man worked on nuclear subs back in his Navy days.And my dad ran the engine room on a nuclear aircraft carrier.

High five.

Against Him?
02-22-2010, 10:13 PM
And my dad ran the engine room on a nuclear aircraft carrier.

High five.

I ran the engine room on a nuclear aircraft carrier.





And yea space shuttles blow up. Everything has some risk.
Beats sitting around in the dark. So until we can make solar efficient enough to work, we're probably going to end up depending on nuclear power.

neidnarb11890
02-22-2010, 11:34 PM
Hey, if sitting around in the dark was good enough for Thoreau, it's good enough for me!

Iluvpowerchords
02-22-2010, 11:43 PM
I think it would be neat at first.

Until the owner of the plant tried to block out the sun.

lolmnt
02-22-2010, 11:52 PM
It's okay, my baby will shoot him.

TN_BOOTBOY
02-23-2010, 09:01 AM
Leave it to a skinhead to not understand how anything works.

I can't even properly counter your argument. Clearly you haven't yet understood that just because things produce carbon dioxide and plants use it doesn't mean they are breaking down the carbon dioxide fast enough to maintain a near-constant global level. You ever see those "global carbon dioxide" graphs? You notice how it doesn't slow down at all and keeps increasing and increasing?

Wind energy is costly to develop and maintain. Hydroelectric is neat until it destroys a lot of the life in the river of whatever it is damming up. Solar energy isn't anywhere near as efficient as you apparently think.

And to sum up my feelings on your argument I laughed hard when you said "There's other carbons that are a lot worse that no one ever mentions." Clearly you don't know much about chemistry. Or anything for that matter.
Then explain why the lumber companies are being able to cut trees almost half as fast as they were 50 years ago. Trees that they had to wait 10 years to be large enough to cut are coming back in five. And you can discuss something without insulting my intelligence or having to point out my chosen subculture. Before anything, I'm a 42 yr old man that at one time would have garnered respect for my age and life experience. I'll show you respect if you do the same for me.

lavazza
02-23-2010, 10:08 AM
I hope people are willing to sacrifice the manure for the plants to try to keep the planetsī climate roughly the way it is now. Additionally people are harvesting much more trees every day than there come back. So we produce manure for something we reap to fast and meanwhile produce toxin for something we have to live with.
The export of tanks is also a very fine thing, for the exporting industry. Who cares that tanks kill?

charliezard!
02-23-2010, 06:24 PM
There is actually a scientificly proven way to recycle the spent nuclear fuel rods, so there isnt hardly any waste only one problem. The libral A-holes in our government have made it illegal for whatever reason.

What are you talking about?
*looks at profile*
You're a retard.
no... don't worry. I'm bein' satirical.

Nuclear power is sooo efficient. I don't mind us using it, but I'm scared of investing too much into it until we've researched more...