Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 21:44:01 GMT -5
Chernobyl was poorly built and designed- by the ultimate leftists at all, the USSR. Allow ideology to dictate what should be based upon mathematics, and you get results like Chernobyl. Chernobyl was poorly designed, sure, but I doubt that had much to do with them being leftists. It was more about cost cutting, which is what you'd get over here if someone wasn't watching corporations constantly. We've already seen that happen in the pharmaceutical industry and other places. No reason it wouldn't happen in nuclear power. You don't like leftists, and that's what's making you say that leftist philosophy led to Chernobyl, not the facts. Well, sure. But the fact is still- Chernobyl was poorly designed and built- by leftists. Correlation is not causation, to be sure. But look at recently designed web sites under the direction of leftists on our shores, you have to start to wonder.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 21:45:38 GMT -5
Chernobyl was poorly designed, sure, but I doubt that had much to do with them being leftists. It was more about cost cutting, which is what you'd get over here if someone wasn't watching corporations constantly. We've already seen that happen in the pharmaceutical industry and other places. No reason it wouldn't happen in nuclear power. You don't like leftists, and that's what's making you say that leftist philosophy led to Chernobyl, not the facts. Were the Three Mile Island nuclear reactors built by leftists? No. That's why the meltdown was relatively contained, and folks can now go visit there safely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 21:50:51 GMT -5
Were the Three Mile Island nuclear reactors built by leftists? No. That's why the meltdown was relatively contained, and folks can now go visit there safely. Was the Tacoma Narrows Bridge built by leftists?
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 3, 2013 22:30:27 GMT -5
Chernobyl was poorly designed, sure, but I doubt that had much to do with them being leftists. It was more about cost cutting, which is what you'd get over here if someone wasn't watching corporations constantly. We've already seen that happen in the pharmaceutical industry and other places. No reason it wouldn't happen in nuclear power. You don't like leftists, and that's what's making you say that leftist philosophy led to Chernobyl, not the facts. Well, sure. But the fact is still- Chernobyl was poorly designed and built- by leftists. Correlation is not causation, to be sure. But look at recently designed web sites under the direction of leftists on our shores, you have to start to wonder..... Leftists! Lol
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Nov 5, 2013 0:56:19 GMT -5
Wow! What a messy thread. Flaming straw men, everywhere.
So, is the choice between nuclear energy and living in caves? Or, is it between using fossil fuels as wastefully as possible and living in caves? Or, is it between being a "good person" (therefore, eager to live in a cave) and being a "bad person" who likes "creature comforts" (like modern medicine and central heat)?
Nuclear power has problems, notably the half-life of the waste. But it is "clean" when it comes to particle emissions. Thus, its reputation as a "clean" fuel. That doesn't mean we should ignore that half-life thing entirely...even though France is well into "so far, so good" territory, and few nuclear plants are at risk of experiencing a tsunami.
I should note, we are ALREADY conserving, mightily. Our homes use far less fuel for heating than they did a few decades ago. Our cars get better mileage, and need replacing less frequently, lowering manufacturing pollution. (My car is 14 years old, and has no "Bondo" patches on it.) Our appliances get better bang for the kilowatt. Our homes are better insulated, our windows thermo-paned, our funaces/heat pumps more efficient. Air-conditioning is no longer only for the wealthy. Our air and water are cleaner than they were 50 years ago.
Some of us even have BOTH a computer AND a clothes-line.
Time to set aside "either/or" and look towards, "both/and."
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Nov 5, 2013 17:17:18 GMT -5
Nukes are a clean source of energy so long as the cores aren't in melt down.
|
|
|
Post by The New Sheriff of Rock Ridge on Nov 5, 2013 19:33:54 GMT -5
Let's keep things on topic and cut out the personal attacks.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 5, 2013 19:48:24 GMT -5
Nukes are a clean source of energy so long as the cores aren't in melt down. Well you can put it this way, nukes are the cleanest until they're not. Then they're the worst. Sorry I'm not willing to take these chances with such a dangerous and toxic substance.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 5, 2013 20:26:01 GMT -5
Nukes are a clean source of energy so long as the cores aren't in melt down. Well you can put it this way, nukes are the cleanest until they're not. Then they're the worst. Sorry I'm not willing to take these chances with such a dangerous and toxic substance. Well it is a good thing that others are.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 5, 2013 20:29:53 GMT -5
Well you can put it this way, nukes are the cleanest until they're not. Then they're the worst. Sorry I'm not willing to take these chances with such a dangerous and toxic substance. Well it is a good thing that others are. No it's not. It's stupid and shortsighted.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 5, 2013 20:31:26 GMT -5
Well it is a good thing that others are. No it's not. It's stupid and shortsighted. Well others disagree. Would you also be against fusion if they ever get it to work?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2013 20:32:34 GMT -5
Well it is a good thing that others are. No it's not. It's stupid and shortsighted. No form of energy is without its costs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2013 20:37:33 GMT -5
Those hot air balloons are dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 5, 2013 20:39:14 GMT -5
No it's not. It's stupid and shortsighted. Well others disagree. Would you also be against fusion if they ever get it to work? Depends on what you mean by getting it to work. I'm against pollution. I'm also against the way we waste oil gas and electricity. We use it in so many frivolous ways. You know if those cooling rods used in nuclear energy are allowed to get too hot it's a disaster. My whole premise of starting this thread was the point out that man is actually expecting us to believe that they've got a 10,000 year plan it's going to work. I'm sorry but I don't believe them. We don't even begin to even understand 10,000 years. I noticed with people to the right of center that everything energy companies do is great. Nothing they do is wrong. There are no ramifications of the future. There's no pollution and if there is it's okay. They can drill where they want. Everything is good with energy. They can do whatever the hell they want. And anyone that tries the point anything else out about this endless energy addiction they are labeled some kind of radical wacko environmentalist. This is a little bit too one sided to be believable.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 5, 2013 20:39:40 GMT -5
No it's not. It's stupid and shortsighted. No form of energy is without its costs. Well thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 5, 2013 20:40:38 GMT -5
Those hot air balloons are dangerous. Gads
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2013 20:43:12 GMT -5
Those hot air balloons are dangerous. As are hot air politicians.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2013 20:48:12 GMT -5
Those hot air balloons are dangerous. As are hot air politicians. Like Obama.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2013 20:58:13 GMT -5
Well it is a good thing that others are. No it's not. It's stupid and shortsighted. Drill baby drill, one or the other OR shut your computer down.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2013 22:08:22 GMT -5
Well others disagree. Would you also be against fusion if they ever get it to work? Depends on what you mean by getting it to work. I'm against pollution. I'm also against the way we waste oil gas and electricity. We use it in so many frivolous ways. You know if those cooling rods used in nuclear energy are allowed to get too hot it's a disaster. My whole premise of starting this thread was the point out that man is actually expecting us to believe that they've got a 10,000 year plan it's going to work. I'm sorry but I don't believe them. We don't even begin to even understand 10,000 years. I noticed with people to the right of center that everything energy companies do is great. Nothing they do is wrong. There are no ramifications of the future. There's no pollution and if there is it's okay. They can drill where they want. Everything is good with energy. They can do whatever the hell they want. And anyone that tries the point anything else out about this endless energy addiction they are labeled some kind of radical wacko environmentalist. This is a little bit too one sided to be believable. Exactly- a little pollution, so what? I absolutely care less. Nature is extremely overrated, and I has no real value other than to be exploited for profit.
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Nov 6, 2013 1:46:43 GMT -5
Well others disagree. Would you also be against fusion if they ever get it to work? Depends on what you mean by getting it to work. I'm against pollution. I'm also against the way we waste oil gas and electricity. We use it in so many frivolous ways. You know if those cooling rods used in nuclear energy are allowed to get too hot it's a disaster. My whole premise of starting this thread was the point out that man is actually expecting us to believe that they've got a 10,000 year plan it's going to work. I'm sorry but I don't believe them. We don't even begin to even understand 10,000 years. I noticed with people to the right of center that everything energy companies do is great. Nothing they do is wrong. There are no ramifications of the future. There's no pollution and if there is it's okay. They can drill where they want. Everything is good with energy. They can do whatever the hell they want. And anyone that tries the point anything else out about this endless energy addiction they are labeled some kind of radical wacko environmentalist. This is a little bit too one sided to be believable. Y'know, I rarely get off on personalities on the board, but I just have to say this. This post states a position, ie, that pretending humans can safely contain nuclear waste for 10,000 years might be an example of cock-eyed optimism. It's a valid point, worthy of discussion. It's not even something any sentient poster would deny. If you made more posts like this, possibly without claiming proponents of nuclear energy are eager to see more pollution, or, at best indifferent, you might find the board more receptive to your arguments. You might even find it fun to join the conversation, even if it's as a member of "the loyal opposition." Just sayin' [Disclaimer: what I loved about the old SunSpot was the variety of points of view. Nothing of interest can be learned in an echo-chamber. I know it's hard to carry the "leftist" load when HST and Aboutwell are absent, but if you stick to the issues you might find some "far, far right" posters on your side. After all, nuclear power couldn't exist if the companies providing it didn't get special dispensation from Big Brother in the case of horrendous accidents. Just something you might want to think about.]
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Nov 6, 2013 4:15:22 GMT -5
Well others disagree. Would you also be against fusion if they ever get it to work? Depends on what you mean by getting it to work. I'm against pollution. I'm also against the way we waste oil gas and electricity. We use it in so many frivolous ways. You know if those cooling rods used in nuclear energy are allowed to get too hot it's a disaster. My whole premise of starting this thread was the point out that man is actually expecting us to believe that they've got a 10,000 year plan it's going to work. I'm sorry but I don't believe them. We don't even begin to even understand 10,000 years. I noticed with people to the right of center that everything energy companies do is great. Nothing they do is wrong. There are no ramifications of the future. There's no pollution and if there is it's okay. They can drill where they want. Everything is good with energy. They can do whatever the hell they want. And anyone that tries the point anything else out about this endless energy addiction they are labeled some kind of radical wacko environmentalist. This is a little bit too one sided to be believable. Funny you should ask this question moses, as I asked it of you on an ACA thread. I'll try to answer yours here. The process of keeping the cooling rods cool, be it for 10 minutes or 10,000 years is relatively simple, believe it or not. The commitment to maintain that process is the hard task, which is why I tend to agree with you on nuclear power. I point that out because being able to identify the problem is important. Until we can resolve the waste storage commitment issue, I don't particularly care for nuclear power. Now, some scientist out there is going to solve that issue and will do so well before 10,000 years and probably before the end of the century, but until then, I'm not a big fan. No one wanting to have a real discussion about energy use believes as you write about those right of center above. No one wants to pollute. No one believes the carbon energy economy is without risks, even serious risks, to the environment. The problem is that there is no real alternative in the science today. Neither wind nor solar nor bio can even come close to powering the world's need for energy. And just like you are unwilling to promote the continued growth of a 10,000 year hazard, the world is unwilling to go back to non-air conditioned houses and candles until the science of alternate fuels catches up to the demand. So, what do we mean by "work"? I would say that the carbon energy market is doing a reasonably good job now in terms of generating power for the user. so to that degree, it works better than any other energy market. They are not doing a good job of delivering that power (infra-structure investment must increase) and the need to improve on its pollution record is self-obvious, particularly in CO2 production. Given that scenario, and recognizing that alternate energy is many years away from meeting generation levels effectively, what to do? Ironically, we need to build new more efficient cleaner refining plants, as adding new technology to old plants is neither efficient nor cost effective. We need to build more generating stations, preferably natural gas powered and we need to create more supply to generate the revenue (be it through corporate profit, government taxes or some mix of both) to power research into alternate fuels. Like the cooling rod problem precludes a growth in nuclear energy, the failure of alternate energy en masse to meet cost effective generating goals means it is not going anywhere for a while - and the demand for energy is only going to grow.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 6, 2013 6:58:33 GMT -5
Well others disagree. Would you also be against fusion if they ever get it to work? Depends on what you mean by getting it to work. I'm against pollution. I'm also against the way we waste oil gas and electricity. We use it in so many frivolous ways. You know if those cooling rods used in nuclear energy are allowed to get too hot it's a disaster. My whole premise of starting this thread was the point out that man is actually expecting us to believe that they've got a 10,000 year plan it's going to work. I'm sorry but I don't believe them. We don't even begin to even understand 10,000 years. I noticed with people to the right of center that everything energy companies do is great. Nothing they do is wrong. There are no ramifications of the future. There's no pollution and if there is it's okay. They can drill where they want. Everything is good with energy. They can do whatever the hell they want. And anyone that tries the point anything else out about this endless energy addiction they are labeled some kind of radical wacko environmentalist. This is a little bit too one sided to be believable. Well reality is like that, if the choice is our lifestyle we choose our lifestyle. The problem of the rods will be solved in way less than 10000 years if we can continue to invent new technologies. One easy solution is to just ship them to the sun, or to the moon, I know that we do not really want them in a fiery rocket at this time, but sometime in the future, or if it really is an issue not to store the rods , then they can be shipped off.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 6, 2013 7:13:48 GMT -5
Depends on what you mean by getting it to work. I'm against pollution. I'm also against the way we waste oil gas and electricity. We use it in so many frivolous ways. You know if those cooling rods used in nuclear energy are allowed to get too hot it's a disaster. My whole premise of starting this thread was the point out that man is actually expecting us to believe that they've got a 10,000 year plan it's going to work. I'm sorry but I don't believe them. We don't even begin to even understand 10,000 years. I noticed with people to the right of center that everything energy companies do is great. Nothing they do is wrong. There are no ramifications of the future. There's no pollution and if there is it's okay. They can drill where they want. Everything is good with energy. They can do whatever the hell they want. And anyone that tries the point anything else out about this endless energy addiction they are labeled some kind of radical wacko environmentalist. This is a little bit too one sided to be believable. Funny you should ask this question moses, as I asked it of you on an ACA thread. I'll try to answer yours here. The process of keeping the cooling rods cool, be it for 10 minutes or 10,000 years is relatively simple, believe it or not. The commitment to maintain that process is the hard task, which is why I tend to agree with you on nuclear power. I point that out because being able to identify the problem is important. Until we can resolve the waste storage commitment issue, I don't particularly care for nuclear power. Now, some scientist out there is going to solve that issue and will do so well before 10,000 years and probably before the end of the century, but until then, I'm not a big fan. No one wanting to have a real discussion about energy use believes as you write about those right of center above. No one wants to pollute. No one believes the carbon energy economy is without risks, even serious risks, to the environment. The problem is that there is no real alternative in the science today. Neither wind nor solar nor bio can even come close to powering the world's need for energy. And just like you are unwilling to promote the continued growth of a 10,000 year hazard, the world is unwilling to go back to non-air conditioned houses and candles until the science of alternate fuels catches up to the demand. So, what do we mean by "work"? I would say that the carbon energy market is doing a reasonably good job now in terms of generating power for the user. so to that degree, it works better than any other energy market. They are not doing a good job of delivering that power (infra-structure investment must increase) and the need to improve on its pollution record is self-obvious, particularly in CO2 production. Given that scenario, and recognizing that alternate energy is many years away from meeting generation levels effectively, what to do? Ironically, we need to build new more efficient cleaner refining plants, as adding new technology to old plants is neither efficient nor cost effective. We need to build more generating stations, preferably natural gas powered and we need to create more supply to generate the revenue (be it through corporate profit, government taxes or some mix of both) to power research into alternate fuels. Like the cooling rod problem precludes a growth in nuclear energy, the failure of alternate energy en masse to meet cost effective generating goals means it is not going anywhere for a while - and the demand for energy is only going to grow. Very well reasoned post. I do see that you buy into the C02 is a pollutant meme. Since we need c02 to survive i.e. plants like it, it doesn't seem to be driving world temperatures(which having it warmer might also be a good thing), then I am not anti C02, color me a crazy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 7:49:47 GMT -5
Depends on what you mean by getting it to work. I'm against pollution. I'm also against the way we waste oil gas and electricity. We use it in so many frivolous ways. You know if those cooling rods used in nuclear energy are allowed to get too hot it's a disaster. My whole premise of starting this thread was the point out that man is actually expecting us to believe that they've got a 10,000 year plan it's going to work. I'm sorry but I don't believe them. We don't even begin to even understand 10,000 years. I noticed with people to the right of center that everything energy companies do is great. Nothing they do is wrong. There are no ramifications of the future. There's no pollution and if there is it's okay. They can drill where they want. Everything is good with energy. They can do whatever the hell they want. And anyone that tries the point anything else out about this endless energy addiction they are labeled some kind of radical wacko environmentalist. This is a little bit too one sided to be believable. Exactly- a little pollution, so what? I absolutely care less. Nature is extremely overrated, and I has no real value other than to be exploited for profit.That is the most ridiculous statement that I have heard in an age.
|
|