Page 1 of 2
lavazza
K**e sold out
Join date: Dec 2005
7,304 IQ
#1
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..... What´s the punks´ opinion on the use of nuclear power as electricity? (Please don´t start to talk Ahmadinedschad here, that´s 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 isn´t anywhere near a save solution. There are incidents in nearly any country where the operating company claims it´s 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
Registered User
Join date: Jul 2006
903 IQ
#2
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
Sucker-Punched By Christ
Join date: Dec 2004
1,233 IQ
#3
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
go fly some kites
Join date: Jan 2009
1,175 IQ
#4
Quote by RockThe40oz
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.
>>-(ಠ_ಠ-<<
>>-(. Y .)-<<
>>> . (<<<
>>-( Y )-<<
Quote by dudetheman
Dude, your fucking sig creeps me out.

Quote by Kosh H
I just noticed his sig too...I feel uncomfortable now...

Quote by WantsLesPaul
Your sig killed my boner _


DIY SO-CAL PUNK LABEL
lolmnt
Earth of the Butt
Join date: Sep 2006
4,159 IQ
#6
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.
*-)
Quote by Bob_Sacamano
i kinda wish we all had a penis and vagina instead of buttholes

i mean no offense to buttholes and poop or anything

Rest in Peace, Troy Davis and Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis and Eric Garner and Mike Brown
skatinpunk
Registered User
Join date: Jul 2009
195 IQ
#7
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!
Registered User
Join date: Sep 2008
1,337 IQ
#8
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.
Last edited by charliezard! at Feb 20, 2010,
SKAtastic7770
Registered User
Join date: Nov 2008
828 IQ
#9
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
Classic
Join date: Jul 2006
1,427 IQ
#10
Quote by RockThe40oz
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.

ok, yeah. my name is silly because I signed up when I was 13.

BEDBUGS
axeslash
I got no learnin'
Join date: Jan 2006
3,485 IQ
#11
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.
Journalism is just a gun. It's only got one bullet in it, but if you aim right, that's all you need. Aim it right, and you can blow a kneecap off the world.
neidnarb11890
so bored with the USA
Join date: Mar 2006
270 IQ
#12
A natural gas power plant in my state exploded a couple weeks ago.
lavazza
K**e sold out
Join date: Dec 2005
7,304 IQ
#13
Quote by axeslash
First person to talk about a nuclear explosion happening at a power plant gets laughed out of this thread.


I´m 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
Sucker-Punched By Christ
Join date: Dec 2004
1,233 IQ
#14
Quote by axeslash
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.
Last edited by RockThe40oz at Feb 21, 2010,
travs2448
Registered User
Join date: May 2008
1,002 IQ
#15
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.
Quote by travs2448
is the puppy solid state or tube?

Quote by diceksox1809
solid state. when she screams it pisses me off

^

Quote by GrizzlyFnAdams6
Dimebag had s*** tone and that guitar plays like an abortion. Come at me, bro!


Quote by jpatan
It's because Garth Brooks brings the ****in' br00tz.
RockThe40oz
Sucker-Punched By Christ
Join date: Dec 2004
1,233 IQ
#16
Quote by travs2448
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
K**e sold out
Join date: Dec 2005
7,304 IQ
#17
Quote by RockThe40oz
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.


There´s a repository in Germany, the government in the 80s ignored those who said it´s 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 don´t 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 there´s enough desert.
RockThe40oz
Sucker-Punched By Christ
Join date: Dec 2004
1,233 IQ
#18
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?
anarkee
oh the horror!
Join date: Aug 2006
3,136 IQ
#20
Quote by element4433
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
Sucker-Punched By Christ
Join date: Dec 2004
1,233 IQ
#21
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
oh the horror!
Join date: Aug 2006
3,136 IQ
#22
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
Prozac Junkie
Join date: May 2004
7,782 IQ
#23
Do you know where nuclear power lies?

I said it starts. and ends with you.
TN_BOOTBOY
Yep! I'm a Skinhead!
Join date: Sep 2004
300 IQ
#25
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.
He who acts, conquers.Nashvillepunk.org

I'm old, I'm tired, and I have acid reflux. So don't mess with me.
SuperBlob
DIRECT HIT!
Join date: Feb 2006
1,589 IQ
#26
I still think my wind powered car would work. Generates energy as it moves, why shouldn't it work? >_>
FUCK YOU! GET PUMPED!
axeslash
I got no learnin'
Join date: Jan 2006
3,485 IQ
#27
Quote by TN_BOOTBOY
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.
Journalism is just a gun. It's only got one bullet in it, but if you aim right, that's all you need. Aim it right, and you can blow a kneecap off the world.
travs2448
Registered User
Join date: May 2008
1,002 IQ
#28
Quote by RockThe40oz
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
Quote by travs2448
is the puppy solid state or tube?

Quote by diceksox1809
solid state. when she screams it pisses me off

^

Quote by GrizzlyFnAdams6
Dimebag had s*** tone and that guitar plays like an abortion. Come at me, bro!


Quote by jpatan
It's because Garth Brooks brings the ****in' br00tz.
axeslash
I got no learnin'
Join date: Jan 2006
3,485 IQ
#29
Quote by anarkee
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.
Journalism is just a gun. It's only got one bullet in it, but if you aim right, that's all you need. Aim it right, and you can blow a kneecap off the world.
rushpython
Caught in a Mosh
Join date: Sep 2009
878 IQ
#30
i think we need to make Large scale hydrolisis
Survivor of:
Maryland Deathfest X
Maryland Deathfest XI
Maryland Deathfest XII
axeslash
I got no learnin'
Join date: Jan 2006
3,485 IQ
#31
Quote by travs2448
At 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.
Journalism is just a gun. It's only got one bullet in it, but if you aim right, that's all you need. Aim it right, and you can blow a kneecap off the world.
axeslash
I got no learnin'
Join date: Jan 2006
3,485 IQ
#32
Quote by rushpython
i think we need to make Large scale hydrolisis
I am dying to hear how you think that will work.
Journalism is just a gun. It's only got one bullet in it, but if you aim right, that's all you need. Aim it right, and you can blow a kneecap off the world.
Against Him?
Registered User
Join date: Dec 2006
674 IQ
#33
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
so bored with the USA
Join date: Mar 2006
270 IQ
#34
Yeah, my old man worked on nuclear subs back in his Navy days.
SuperBlob
DIRECT HIT!
Join date: Feb 2006
1,589 IQ
#35
Quote by Against Him?

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?
FUCK YOU! GET PUMPED!
Against Him?
Registered User
Join date: Dec 2006
674 IQ
#37
Quote by SuperBlob
Surely the sun would be more logical?


lol that's actually what I meant.
nashawa
Rightful HxC Emperor
Join date: Feb 2008
1,511 IQ
#38
Quote by anarkee
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.

Quote by SuperBlob
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.
Quote by emoboy027
Is fingering an emo chick that likes yoy and that has fallen in love with you is it wrong to you to finger her during lunch outside in front of everyone at the high school? would you not care or lol even wish it was you?

Youztoobz
MIDI Magicalness!
Last edited by nashawa at Feb 22, 2010,
lavazza
K**e sold out
Join date: Dec 2005
7,304 IQ
#39
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.

Quote by Against Him?
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?

Quote by TN_BOOTBOY
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
I didn´t know socialisation of a "first world" country could damage you so much
RockThe40oz
Sucker-Punched By Christ
Join date: Dec 2004
1,233 IQ
#40
Quote by neidnarb11890
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.