Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
:laugh:
You sound like a stereotype out of South Park.
"Miiisssster Scientist!"
Wow. :laugh:
Do you believe that all Looney Tunes cartoons provide an accurate portrayal when they show scientists as unfeeling "mad scientists?"
Or hell, movies and TV love to vilify scientists in this fashion. It's a damn cheap shot for the writers. It's become ingrained into the public's minds, just like irrational fears of radiation. Oh teh noes!!!! Radioactive material is nearby! It's going to kill me!!!!
Oh wait, you're probably in more danger of getting cancer from your smoke alarm. Oops.
Listen to Carl Sagan sometime if you want to hear the compassion of a scientist.
Originally posted by: gsaldivar
lol
Your Greenpeace "evidence" is insta-fail.
The same info is all over the web in news sites about French and German nuclear protests. And when an idiot like you says something it's "instant fail". What a pathetic logical argument you present.
Are YOU pretending this is logical? Who the hell is Aimster and what is Amisterish and you are a big fat baby. I win.
The logic you can't seem to get through your big fat head is that the problem of nuclear waste is always solved tomorrow and never today. Everybody loves the promise and nobody will allow any solution that has anything to do with storing any waste around them. You can't seem to comprehend the fact that people are insane and fear anything invisible. Nobody gives a shit about technical realities.
Fighting words. Moonbeam set up a nice straw man when he called me "moral swine" because I'm for the safe storage of nuclear waste in states that have enormous uninhabited space. The article he posted actually agrees with my point of view. Too bad he never read it.
I read the article and linked it without editing so as not to present only one side of the story. You did read that the problem of N waste has never been solved anywhere, right. That big empty space is Nevada and the people of Nevada don't want it there. But if you get enough power you can shove it down their throat. Why not cover the desert with solar cells. The sun can turn turbines as easily as nuclear fuel and there's no radioactivity or CO2.
Note again how the solutions are always in the future. Tomorrow I clean up says the pig. Sure you will, piggy.
I didn't realize there are only these two choices.Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Many probably don't remember three mile island but hopefully have heard or read about it. Maybe a statistical blip but, never the less, shows they can be very dangerous. I think, if you had lived near there with your kids, you might have a different outlook.Originally posted by: jman19
Yes, because nuclear power plants are just so dangerous...
The three-mile island accident was the worst accident after Chernobyl. It killed no one and exposed 6 people to the equivalent of a chest x-ray. Do you know how many coal miners die of black-lung disease every year? Once you do the math you will see which is safer.
:sigh;
As pointed out in an earlier post, this was not to suggest that nuclear power plants elsewhere in the world are operated as haphazardly. It was in response to another post which tried to laugh off the notion that nuclear power is dangerous. It is dangerous, very dangerous but not unmanageable. The enormous conatinment structures built around reactors is an acknowledgment of the danger.
Trucks and cars are dangerous, right? To not agree with this is folly. I don't think they should be eliminated though. The cumulative effect of the emitted pollutants is dangerous. There have been efforts to ameliorate this through catalytic converters, more efficient induction systems, etc. It seems to be a natural process of correction and improvement that all products go through to various degrees. I don't understand why the nuclear power industry thinks it can be exempt from this. The arrogance is almost wrung out...
:laugh:
Sorry, I hadn't yet read what you two were arguing about. The fact that another member's name is now used as a form of argument seemed humorous.
Yes, he is missed. Someone who seemed to not let the oppression of the politicians, big business, fundies, etc get him down. One in a billliiion.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
Not to mention, what is the environmental cost of building all those solar panels with their heavy metals and hazardous chemicals, and the constant maintenance and replacement of those panels? Just because the sunlight they use is environmentally friendly doesn't mean the panels are.
Ditto. I've heard this many times before... Exact same situation with the Prius, fuel-efficient car but the batteries are made out of some nasty stuff...
I know it hasn't. Neither have the problems that arise from burning fossil fuels. Whats your point? My point is that nuclear energy is the cleanest, safest, and most efficient form of energy we have to date.
As I've said a hundred time and so have other forum members: solar energy is too immature for clean and efficient use.
The people in Nevada don't want it because this country has failed in science education. They don't even want it transported because they think if a terrorist attack waste they will have a Hiroshima on their hands. As the article points out, engineers are highly regarded in France and are trusted as they should be. Europeans are very well educated when it comes to science while Americans watch too much science fiction - that is the difference.
Again, you never provided any evidence of widespread nuclear contamination.
Originally posted by: seemingly random
I didn't realize there are only these two choices.Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Many probably don't remember three mile island but hopefully have heard or read about it. Maybe a statistical blip but, never the less, shows they can be very dangerous. I think, if you had lived near there with your kids, you might have a different outlook.Originally posted by: jman19
Yes, because nuclear power plants are just so dangerous...
The three-mile island accident was the worst accident after Chernobyl. It killed no one and exposed 6 people to the equivalent of a chest x-ray. Do you know how many coal miners die of black-lung disease every year? Once you do the math you will see which is safer.
:sigh;
As pointed out in an earlier post, this was not to suggest that nuclear power plants elsewhere in the world are operated as haphazardly. It was in response to another post which tried to laugh off the notion that nuclear power is dangerous. It is dangerous, very dangerous but not unmanageable. The enormous conatinment structures built around reactors is an acknowledgment of the danger.
Trucks and cars are dangerous, right? To not agree with this is folly. I don't think they should be eliminated though. The cumulative effect of the emitted pollutants is dangerous. There have been efforts to ameliorate this through catalytic converters, more efficient induction systems, etc. It seems to be a natural process of correction and improvement that all products go through to various degrees. I don't understand why the nuclear power industry thinks it can be exempt from this. The arrogance is almost wrung out...
There are more than two choices, nuclear power is just the best choice right now. The nuclear power industry has never been exempt from any environmental standards, which is why it is very safe a clean today.
gsaldivar
Diamond Member
- Apr 30, 2001
- 8,691
- 1
- 81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: gsaldivar
lol
Your Greenpeace "evidence" is insta-fail.
The same info is all over the web in news sites about French and German nuclear protests. And when an idiot like you says something it's "instant fail". What a pathetic logical argument you present.
So your "evidence" is that a protest took place? Yes... that's insta-fail.
My point is that both coal and nuclear are the wrong direction. Solar in the way to go. Immature in not an issue. We need a Saturn rocket type effort.
As far as nuclear waste is concerned, what evidence do I need. We create it and we have no permanent solution. That means waste is sitting around improperly dealt with.
Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: gsaldivar
lol
Your Greenpeace "evidence" is insta-fail.
The same info is all over the web in news sites about French and German nuclear protests. And when an idiot like you says something it's "instant fail". What a pathetic logical argument you present.
So your "evidence" is that a protest took place? Yes... that's insta-fail.
No, France was held out as an example of successful nuclear power but it is having its own problems there. That was my point. You fail in understanding, doubtless because you have small feet.
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
Did you read about the KiteGen project I mentioned earlier? Sounds very promising, it'd be great to hear more about that. Unfortunately I haven't heard anything about how close it is to commercialization, it seems like the research is moving at a pretty slow pace, so I'd think at least five years. If it lives up to expectations, though, it would be pretty amazing.
I hadn't read about France's issues with nuclear waste, that's definitely a bit of an eye opener. Of course, we have a lot more room to safely dump waste, but disposal of spent fuel and nuclear power in general is such a political nightmare, it's making me question if it's really worth pursuing. We've been researching Yucca Mountain for decades and thrown billions of dollars at the project, and little progress has been made.
well here in Washington state we had a govenor who was very pro nuke named dixie lee ray. thus we began the WPPPS (read whoops which it was nicknamed) powerplant at Satsop.
This plant was waaayy over budget from day one and eventually was mothballed without ever producing a KW of power.
WPPPS
Then there's Hanford a contaminated mess of leaky tanks that the Govt likes to play down.
Read esp the cleanup section.
hanford
I would be on board for Nuclear if I could be convinced they had the disposal problem solved, but they do not.
disposal
(The bacteria is an interesting idea ,but far from practical yet.)
France?? ahh the golden example they produce 80% of thier countries power through nuke plants. so surely they have an answer?( actually they have little choice since france has no oil or gas)
Today we stock containers of waste because currently scientists don't know how to reduce or eliminate the toxicity, but maybe in 100 years perhaps scientists will."
Bataille began working on a new law that he presented to parliament in 1991. It laid plans to build 3-4 research laboratories at various sites. These laboratories would be charged with investigating various options, including deep geological storage, above ground stocking and transmutation and detoxification of waste. The law calls for the labs to be built in the next few years and then, based on the research they yield, parliament will decide its final decision. Bataille's law specifies 2006 as the year in which parliament must decide which laboratory will become the national stocking center
Bataille's plan seems to be working. Several regions have applied to host underground laboratories hoping the labs will bring in money and high prestige scientific jobs. But ultimate success is by no means certain. One of these laboratories will, in effect, become the stocking center for the nation and the local people may find that unacceptable. If protesters organize, they can block shipments on the roads and rail. The situation could quickly get out of hand.
Nuclear waste is an enormously difficult political problem which to date no country has solved. It is, in a sense, the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry. Could this issue strike down France's uniquely successful nuclear program? France's politicians and technocrats are in no doubt. If France is unable to solve this issue, says Mandil, then "I do not see how we can continue our nuclear program."
france
They also apparently ship it to russia
russia
This plant was waaayy over budget from day one and eventually was mothballed without ever producing a KW of power.
WPPPS
Then there's Hanford a contaminated mess of leaky tanks that the Govt likes to play down.
Read esp the cleanup section.
hanford
I would be on board for Nuclear if I could be convinced they had the disposal problem solved, but they do not.
disposal
(The bacteria is an interesting idea ,but far from practical yet.)
France?? ahh the golden example they produce 80% of thier countries power through nuke plants. so surely they have an answer?( actually they have little choice since france has no oil or gas)
Today we stock containers of waste because currently scientists don't know how to reduce or eliminate the toxicity, but maybe in 100 years perhaps scientists will."
Bataille began working on a new law that he presented to parliament in 1991. It laid plans to build 3-4 research laboratories at various sites. These laboratories would be charged with investigating various options, including deep geological storage, above ground stocking and transmutation and detoxification of waste. The law calls for the labs to be built in the next few years and then, based on the research they yield, parliament will decide its final decision. Bataille's law specifies 2006 as the year in which parliament must decide which laboratory will become the national stocking center
Bataille's plan seems to be working. Several regions have applied to host underground laboratories hoping the labs will bring in money and high prestige scientific jobs. But ultimate success is by no means certain. One of these laboratories will, in effect, become the stocking center for the nation and the local people may find that unacceptable. If protesters organize, they can block shipments on the roads and rail. The situation could quickly get out of hand.
Nuclear waste is an enormously difficult political problem which to date no country has solved. It is, in a sense, the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry. Could this issue strike down France's uniquely successful nuclear program? France's politicians and technocrats are in no doubt. If France is unable to solve this issue, says Mandil, then "I do not see how we can continue our nuclear program."
france
They also apparently ship it to russia
russia
France has had releases of nuclear contamination. Often they dont even tell the public what is going on.
We could just use wind. It's about as cost-effective as nuclear these days.
I also fail to understand why our hybrid cars don't all come with a plug-in feature. Why do they use the gas engine to charge the battery? In fact, why don't we have electric cars by now!?
But that only concerns the photovoltaic tech..and ignores the other ways of harnessing solar power.
Wind Can Supply 20% of U.S. Electricity, Report Says
By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 13, 2008; Page D07
The Energy Department said yesterday that the United States has the ability to meet 20 percent of its electricity-generation needs with wind by 2030, enough to displace 50 percent of natural gas consumption and 18 percent of coal consumption
By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 13, 2008; Page D07
The Energy Department said yesterday that the United States has the ability to meet 20 percent of its electricity-generation needs with wind by 2030, enough to displace 50 percent of natural gas consumption and 18 percent of coal consumption
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter