|
|
Post by Magnet Man on Jan 28, 2008 15:51:44 GMT -5
By now it should be painfully obvious to all that the scare generated by the anti-nuclear energy crowd has done a great disservice to this country and the global enviroment.
With no coal or oil deposits it her own, and concerned about energy dependency on foreign supplies, France opted for nuclear energy thirty years ago. The country currently operates fifty eight nuclear power plants. France has the cleanest air in Europe and the cheapest electricity rates - and even exports some to Germany and Britain. They have a giant facility on the Normandy coast that cools spent fuel rods and recyles them for use again.
Though there will always be the need to be on guard against malfunction and melt-down - staying on top of that engineering concern pales when compared against the massive environmental destruction created by burning fossil fuels and the ever-increasing brown-outs that are beginning to plague us. Energy demands will keep doubling more or less infinitely. Solar and wind can never be more than supplimental resources, and hydro is limited. Fighting wars just to keep oil flowing is bankrupting us and drilling for more has become a serious moral issue.
Its about time America moved out of the Iron Age and put its faith in the Nuclear Age.
|
|
fay
Global Steward
Posts: 100
|
Post by fay on Feb 8, 2008 14:58:23 GMT -5
i personaly am thankful to the anti-nuclear crowd/protesters/worriers (who risked their own lives so that we can be safe)for creating awareness of the dangers of the nuclear waste/plants/energy.
only as long as the power remains with the people and life(all forms) is not hurt by the nuclear plants or the waste generated by these plants, the nuclear power should be acceptable.
one has to weigh out the benifits and losses for future generations too.imo the technology available today for nuclear power generation is not clean and will pollute the earth. so we should not use it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kwan Yu on Feb 8, 2008 20:01:20 GMT -5
i the technology available today for nuclear power generation is not clean and will pollute the earth. so we should not use it. People resist the new. |
|
murex
Global Steward
Posts: 117
|
Post by murex on Feb 9, 2008 0:47:56 GMT -5
nuclear energy is clean and quite a good resource. Their is waste that is bad thow, but for now, I thinks it one of the best resources for energy. The waste can be saved for future generations (as bad as that sounds) to shoot into the sun.
The future is key because we have no cost-effect way for getting things into space. We need one of those space elevators.
|
|
|
|
Post by know knot on Feb 9, 2008 1:05:09 GMT -5
nuclear energy is clean and quite a good resource. Their is waste that is bad thow, but for now, I thinks it one of the best resources for energy. The waste can be saved for future generations (as bad as that sounds) to shoot into the sun. The future is key because we have no cost-effect way for getting things into space. We need one of those space elevators. Agreed. A space elevator such as MM has talked about would ultimately be the ideal scenario for complete clean and safe nuclear Power. I've taken two tours to Yucca Mountain here in Nevada and also have done extensive research on the subject of Nuclear Power and nuclear waste management. The energy is here, its accessible now, its clean, and it is, despite those who disagree, safely containable. Its a viable source of power that can sustain us for generations if need be until a better form is fabricated. |
|
fay
Global Steward
Posts: 100
|
Post by fay on Feb 13, 2008 10:56:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by MagnetMan on Feb 13, 2008 13:32:38 GMT -5
I respect your concern regarding the dangers of nuclear waste, fay. Our foundation has made a reasonable study on the pros and cons of nuclear energy use. Our ranch is not far from the proposed Yucca Mountain storage site for all of America's nuclear waste. I took the kids on a tour. There is no question in our minds that there will be no leakage in that site for hundreds of years to come. The counter argument that it takes 40,000 years for radiation to exhaust itself and therefore no storage site is 100% safe is silly Storage technology will continue to improve and we will be off nuclear energy within a few decades anyway. In the meantime. nuclear energy is the cleanest source of mass energy we have. All the others added together cannot power the planet. The final solution lies in tidal and wave energy and perhaps huge solar stations orbiting in near space. But that is a massive undertaking still decades ahead. In the meantime fossil fuel combustion is heating up the planet. In the next two or three decades, before we tap into ocean energy, nuclear energy is by far the lesser of two evils. The Sky's in France are crystal clear. They run almost entirely on nuclear and have found ways to recycle much of the waste - with technology improving every year. Sure an accidental melt-down can happen. But after Chernobyl, the safety standards have improved and all plants are on high alert. So where are we? Do we all die now of global warming due to carbon emissions, or take the long term risk of nuclear? |
|
|
|
Post by Trivium515 on Feb 20, 2008 17:24:50 GMT -5
I know this is sort of stating the obvious here but I thought I’d through in my two cents; as far as I know there have only been two consequential nuclear melt downs in the history of nuclear power (Chernobyl-Ukraine, and Three Mile Island-Pennsylvania). I know that especially Chernobyl was a devastating disaster whose toxic effects can still be seen today, but all in all it seems much less threatening than the daunting prospect of global warming. And with the proper maintenance and precaution (such as with the coolant) the plants can run smoothly. Also I have read about several disposal techniques for nuclear waste, I can’t say these ideas of disposal sounds exactly safe but still to me, as MagnetMan has said, perhaps for the short term it seams the best way.
|
|
TarotDragon
Apprentice
ignore me, i'm an idiot
Posts: 99
|
Post by TarotDragon on Feb 21, 2008 14:49:07 GMT -5
As far as I've read, the Three Mile Island incident caused no fatalaties. I don't think they ever conclusively proved that it caused sickness either. Might've, but not terribly. And the fact that France has used it for thirty or so years without a meltdown says a lot. And they've proven that with use, your technology at handling it gets better. Maybe a lot of the fear has to do with a lack of promotion? Like, do people know how well France has hndled their Nuclear power? The waste can be saved for future generations (as bad as that sounds) to shoot into the sun. The future is key because we have no cost-effect way for getting things into space. We need one of those space elevators. Is the shooting of nuclear waste into the sun a new idea that's spreading? Cause I've heard MM talk about it before and now you mentioning it. Just curious. |
|
|
|
Post by Trivium515 on Feb 21, 2008 18:21:38 GMT -5
As far as I've read, the Three Mile Island incident caused no fatalaties. So I correct myself: one consequential nuclear melt down  I think your right about that. Whenever the word "nuclear" comes in, people's minds seem to jump to "Chernobyl" "radioactive" "dangerous" when as you said, the more we handle it the more experienced we'll get, and then we can better our technologies to handle it's downsides more safely.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jupiter on Feb 22, 2008 13:14:07 GMT -5
I'm down with this and alot of my friends aren't , but I have to wonder just how much of this down on"nuclear" isn't promoted from the oil industry. And the thing that makes me crazy is that every mag every tv as everywhere you go you see promotion fro more drilling and how wonderful that it is that we will have lower gas pices. Well wake up people because it isn't wonderful because we will die even without new drilling from the existent output of greenhouse gases. And hey people here comes China and India.  |
|
|
|
Post by MagnetMan on Feb 22, 2008 14:15:22 GMT -5
I'm down with this (nuclear energy) and alot of my friends aren't , but I have to wonder just how much of this down on"nuclear" isn't promoted from the oil industry. Ralph Nader is the main anti-nukist who got the nation to stop building plants. Net result we are twenty years behind France and poor people cannot afford to heat their houses. Good intentions can lead to evil results. Bogey men are easy to evoke, God of course is near impossible. |
|
fay
Global Steward
Posts: 100
|
Post by fay on Feb 24, 2008 9:50:30 GMT -5
well i would agree with nader on the corporate business taking over peoples lives and freedoms. i think that applies to the big business of nuclear power production. to few people in control of the uranium supplies.the average man is again at the bottom of the power chain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kwan Yu on Feb 24, 2008 11:39:55 GMT -5
well i would agree with nader on the corporate business taking over peoples lives and freedoms. i think that applies to the big business of nuclear power production. to few people in control of the uranium supplies.the average man is again at the bottom of the power chain. Corporations Robber barons in new suits. |
|
fay
Global Steward
Posts: 100
|
Post by fay on Feb 26, 2008 10:05:15 GMT -5
and it is your money thats used to make those suits.
|
|
