Why are the environmentalists against nuclear energy?

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Ryan
Chernobyl ring a bell?

bad design + wrong operational procedures = BIG BOOM

I think in the mind of a true environmentalist, even the smallest possibility is too much.

A true environmentalist would see that nukes are almost inevitable when you take into account scalability, our growing population, and the amount of pollution we're currently cranking out with fossil fuels. It's just a matter of building new plants with current technology.

 

[ElFenix]

concentrated nuclear waste is a bad thing.

though, arguably less bad than the nuclear waste pumped into the air by coal plants.

coal plants produce more nuclear waste than nuke plants. not to mention the other toxic substances coal plants produce.

however, because nuke plants cost ridiculous amounts of money up front, it may be cheaper (not to mention cleaner, safer, etc) to build giant wind farms off the coast.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Ryan
Chernobyl ring a bell?

bad design + wrong operational procedures = BIG BOOM

I think in the mind of a true environmentalist, even the smallest possibility is too much.

A true environmentalist would see that nukes are almost inevitable when you take into account scalability, our growing population, and the amount of pollution we're currently cranking out with fossil fuels. It's just a matter of building new plants with current technology.

Yep, fossil fueled plants kill thousands each year. The anti-nuke crowd is just so absurd.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: chambersc
I am against it for nuclear waste. Fix that and call me.


I don't care how much energy it produces -- for me it's all offset by the potential for danger with the waste that is produced.

And yet thousands die each year from lung diseases cause by the output from oil and coal fired power stations. How many are dying each year from nuclear waste?

You're like an anti-fir protester who will step over a guy lying in his own piss to spray paint a woman wearing fir.

To be fair - we go to greater lengths to control nuclear waste than we do waste from oil and coal. If we put as much effort into finding ways to reduce pollution from coal/oil plants, their output would be dramatically cleaner (although - not totally clean).

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused

You're like an anti-fir protester who will step over a guy lying in his own piss to spray paint a woman wearing fir.

i bet she's really itchy. all those needles... man i'm itchy just thinking about it.
on the other hand, you can't beat that fresh pine scent

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: freegeeks


bs, I'm a liberal (if I was living in the USA you would probably label me as a communist).
nuclear energy is just common sense, and "liberal" countries like France and Belgium depend on it for 70% of their energy production

commies aren't liberal.

 

[Alienwho]

Put it on a spaceship and shoot it into the sun.

Besides it's not like that much waste is produced. I read somewhere that the nuclear waste used to power Germany for a year would produce barrels stacked two high that would fit on a football field.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Ryan
Chernobyl ring a bell?

bad design + wrong operational procedures = BIG BOOM

I think in the mind of a true environmentalist, even the smallest possibility is too much.

A true environmentalist would see that nukes are almost inevitable when you take into account scalability, our growing population, and the amount of pollution we're currently cranking out with fossil fuels. It's just a matter of building new plants with current technology.

It's a tradeoff of possibilities - in the mind of someone who wants TRUE clean energy, nuclear energy might be the lesser of the two evils when compared to coal/oil, but it's possible environmental effects are still great.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: freegeeks


bs, I'm a liberal (if I was living in the USA you would probably label me as a communist).
nuclear energy is just common sense, and "liberal" countries like France and Belgium depend on it for 70% of their energy production

commies aren't liberal.

I vote for the socialist party in Belgium. For American standards I'm a communist, in Belgium I'm a "liberal"

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Alienwho
Put it on a spaceship and shoot it into the sun.

Besides it's not like that much waste is produced. I read somewhere that the nuclear waste used to power Germany for a year would produce barrels stacked two high that would fit on a football field.

After hundreds of years, do you still think that waste buildup is negligible?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Amused

You're like an anti-fir protester who will step over a guy lying in his own piss to spray paint a woman wearing fir.

i bet she's really itchy. all those needles... man i'm itchy just thinking about it.
on the other hand, you can't beat that fresh pine scent

Oops

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: freegeeks


bs, I'm a liberal (if I was living in the USA you would probably label me as a communist).
nuclear energy is just common sense, and "liberal" countries like France and Belgium depend on it for 70% of their energy production

commies aren't liberal.

I vote for the socialist party in Belgium. For American standards I'm a communist, in Belgium I'm a "liberal"

Who cares about the energy crisis or politics, you live in Belgium.
You can get the worlds best beers without even having to import it!!!!

For that I am jealous. You red pinko

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: Alienwho
Put it on a spaceship and shoot it into the sun.

Besides it's not like that much waste is produced. I read somewhere that the nuclear waste used to power Germany for a year would produce barrels stacked two high that would fit on a football field.

After hundreds of years, do you still think that waste buildup is negligible?

1)reprocessing
2)after a few hundred years most waste is not radioactive anymore

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: freegeeks


bs, I'm a liberal (if I was living in the USA you would probably label me as a communist).
nuclear energy is just common sense, and "liberal" countries like France and Belgium depend on it for 70% of their energy production

commies aren't liberal.

I vote for the socialist party in Belgium. For American standards I'm a communist, in Belgium I'm a "liberal"

Who cares about the energy crisis or politics, you live in Belgium.
You can get the worlds best beers without even having to import it!!!!

For that I am jealous. You red pinko

:beer:


drinking a Duvel for the moment - mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[Alienwho]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: Alienwho
Put it on a spaceship and shoot it into the sun.

Besides it's not like that much waste is produced. I read somewhere that the nuclear waste used to power Germany for a year would produce barrels stacked two high that would fit on a football field.

After hundreds of years, do you still think that waste buildup is negligible?

1)reprocessing
2)after a few hundred years most waste is not radioactive anymore

Not to mention, obviously in a few hundred years we'll be using a completely different and more efficient energy source. And if we still happen to be using nuclear energy 300 years from now, i'm sure we'll have the technology to mass transit the waste to the sun for disposal.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: chambersc
I am against it for nuclear waste. Fix that and call me.

I don't care how much energy it produces -- for me it's all offset by the potential for danger with the waste that is produced.

Chambersc summed up the biggest opposition: ignorance.

Much of our power comes from coal. Coal contains radioactive particles. Coal is burned and those particles are spewed into the air. So what would you rather have,
1) a teeny tiny amount of easilly controllable nuclear waste from a nuclear plant, or
2) a massive amount of radioactive material thrown into the air where it travels, uncontrollably, into your lungs.

For some reason ignorant people always choose #2. Your damn salt in your kitchen cupboard is just as radioactive as most nuclear waste (ie. the low level nuclear waste). You let that salt into your home. Yet, if someone wants to bury low level waste miles undergroud, far away from you, the ignorant people are terrified.

Nuclear power won't solve all our energy problems. But, it can help ease the problems.

 

[everman]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: Alienwho
Put it on a spaceship and shoot it into the sun.

Besides it's not like that much waste is produced. I read somewhere that the nuclear waste used to power Germany for a year would produce barrels stacked two high that would fit on a football field.

After hundreds of years, do you still think that waste buildup is negligible?

We won't be using fission for hundreds of years, it's more of a stop-gap until we have better fusion plants. And there are nuclear fission reactors that can use the waste from other plants. And safety is no longer an issue, modern reactors are extremely safe, some designs cooling systems so robust that they can go for days with serious problems.

Or we can use more coal, global warming is a myth...right?

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: chambersc
I am against it for nuclear waste. Fix that and call me.


I don't care how much energy it produces -- for me it's all offset by the potential for danger with the waste that is produced.

yes since all other ways to get energy are so much cleaner :roll:

Well, as long as it doesn't produce N-U-C-L-E-A-R W-A-S-T-E then it's definitely cleaner. I will forever be against nuclear technology for this reason.

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: chambersc
I am against it for nuclear waste. Fix that and call me.

I don't care how much energy it produces -- for me it's all offset by the potential for danger with the waste that is produced.

Chambersc summed up the biggest opposition: ignorance.

Much of our power comes from coal. Coal contains radioactive particles. Coal is burned and those particles are spewed into the air. So what would you rather have,
1) a teeny tiny amount of easilly controllable nuclear waste from a nuclear plant, or
2) a massive amount of radioactive material thrown into the air where it travels, uncontrollably, into your lungs.

For some reason ignorant people always choose #2. Your damn salt in your kitchen cupboard is just as radioactive as most nuclear waste (ie. the low level nuclear waste). You let that salt into your home. Yet, if someone wants to bury low level waste miles undergroud, far away from you, the ignorant people are terrified.

Nuclear power won't solve all our energy problems. But, it can help ease the problems.

As a matter of fact, I'm against Coal as well.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

I vote for the socialist party in Belgium. For American standards I'm a communist, in Belgium I'm a "liberal"

i'm still trying to figure out how the word liberal became so twisted. for some reason has become synonymous with the all-powerful, all-knowing, health & safety nanny-state.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: everman

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: Alienwho
Put it on a spaceship and shoot it into the sun.

Besides it's not like that much waste is produced. I read somewhere that the nuclear waste used to power Germany for a year would produce barrels stacked two high that would fit on a football field.

After hundreds of years, do you still think that waste buildup is negligible?

We won't be using fission for hundreds of years, it's more of a stop-gap until we have better fusion plants. And there are nuclear fission reactors that can use the waste from other plants. And safety is no longer an issue, modern reactors are extremely safe, some designs cooling systems so robust that they can go for days with serious problems.

Or we can use more coal, global warming is a myth...right?

Don't take the position I'm giving in this thread as my own - because I haven't represented it here, I'm just pointing out that I can follow their line of reasoning behind not wanting them due to their waste. I understand that their waste can be processed and controlled in various manners, but there's always room for error, and I can see their concern over nuclear energy.

That said - I personally think we need to move to it, becuase I think it's better than the alternative (coal/oil).

 

[dug777]

Long term strorage issues.

The potentially massive impact of a mistake/attack (sure it's incredibly unlikely, but the potential dangers posed are awesome, look at Chernobyl)

Those are the main two, and they're both extremely valid points that can't be ignored in a sensible debate.

Then there's NIMBYISM, to which i suspect many of you would subscribe, even tho you're so blase and keen online about nuclear power...

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: chambersc
I am against it for nuclear waste. Fix that and call me.


I don't care how much energy it produces -- for me it's all offset by the potential for danger with the waste that is produced.

yes since all other ways to get energy are so much cleaner :roll:

Well, as long as it doesn't produce N-U-C-L-E-A-R W-A-S-T-E then it's definitely cleaner. I will forever be against nuclear technology for this reason.

its really sad. here you argue about something you really do not have a clue about.

 

[Savij]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: Alienwho
Put it on a spaceship and shoot it into the sun.

Besides it's not like that much waste is produced. I read somewhere that the nuclear waste used to power Germany for a year would produce barrels stacked two high that would fit on a football field.

After hundreds of years, do you still think that waste buildup is negligible?

I'm pretty sure that figure counts the low level stuff which includes things less radioactive than some things that sit around your house all day.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: chambersc
Well, as long as it doesn't produce N-U-C-L-E-A-R W-A-S-T-E then it's definitely cleaner. I will forever be against nuclear technology for this reason.

But it does, and it puts it into the air you breathe, and you allow it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: freegeeks

I vote for the socialist party in Belgium. For American standards I'm a communist, in Belgium I'm a "liberal"

i'm still trying to figure out how the word liberal became so twisted. for some reason has become synonymous with the all-powerful, all-knowing, health & safety nanny-state.

Because that's where American liberalism headed. Classical liberals are now called "libertarian" in the US.

Happens to a lot of words.