|
| Thread: Nucelear Power Plants |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
posted March 28, 2011 09:59 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 10:00, 28 Mar 2011.
|
Quote:
In 2009 nuclear power provided only 13-14% of the electricity produced worldwide (it's a lot less in terms of energy overall). More than half of that is produced in the US, Japan and France.
That varies per country. If the US produces 19-20% of its power via NPPs, France has more than 75% of its electricity coming from nuclear plants. And by the way please note that nearly half of US's power and about 40% of the world's production comes from coal plants which are proven to be globally more dangerous than the NPPs - directly and indirectly. This totals up above 60% of the power production which is significant figure already. The funny part is that for some reason the regular thermal power stations are ignored immediately when something problematic happens in some NPP and a large number of people start shouting against the nuclear power only. I hope you realize that if you want absolutely clean energy right here and right now (or even in 10 years), you'll have to more than halve your electricity consumption and pay more or less the same money (and bear in mind that you have a huge industry out there which can not afford your stoicism). Now be more realistic and tell me how could this be implemented in a forseeable future?
Quote:
Anyway, I read here that nuclear power is environmental-friendly, cheap and in control.
Are you people blind or something? Fukushima will be a problem for YEARS to come, and it will continue to poison the environment with massive amounts of radioactivity. Can you imagine what this means for Japan - who relies heavily on fish for food? The problems haven't even started.
And aren't you seeing - I repeat this - that those people are COMPLETELY helpless? I mean, it's an ongoing problem for over 2 weeks, we are talking about one of the most advanced industrial countries in the world - and they can do nothing: the company is dabbling, the government is wringing their hands... it's like a natural desaster that no one seems to have the power to stop.
Yes, OK, now tell me how this huge disaster is equal to the polution generated by the coal plants on daily basis that contributes to the global warming and disease spread due to the air polution all over the world? I can't see a thread "Stop the coal plants!" anywhere although Fukushima and Chernobyl are absolutely no match for their killing efficiency. Sure, there is no fuss in the media and all that but the facts remain.
Quote:
I repeat, it's simply a problem of where to put the money and what avenues to explore. A wrong avenue has been followed much to long. It's high time we start to minimize dangers and put serious money into finding safe ways to waste energy.
It sounds simple in theory indeed. In practice however very few countries manage to reach their targets for switching to renewable energy. For example, EU is planning to have 20% of its power from such sources by 2020 - this is however based on interim targets, most of which are not reached before the respective deadlines, especially in the less developed countries. Actually only Germany and Hungary have made some serious progress recently but the price of the electricity has also increased due to varying factors (for example, the wind power plants in Germany failed to produce enough eletricity during Q3 last year and at the same time one of the NPPs was shut down which ultimately resulted in more than 10% more expensive electricity). It's easy to say that if we spend more money on the R&D of renewable sources then the positive results will inevitably follow but many countries ARE already spending a lot of money and the progress is neither unambiguos, nor particularly fast. And this is not because of the evil nuclear power lobbies in the main decision-making bodies, it's because nothing is as straight-forward as you want it to be.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 10:06 AM |
|
|
Nice post Zenofax. I agree.
There is simply no alternative right now. If there was, we might start wondering if we should explore "clean" and "safe" energy only. But guess what.
THERE ISN'T.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 11:26 AM |
|
|
No, not a nice post, but an IRRELEVANT post.
Look at fuel price and fuel consumption. Current fuel price is Germany is € 1,50 per LITRE. This price has doubled within the last 15 years, mainly because of TAXES.
At the same time, this seemed to be a massive incentive to develop much more fuel-effiecient cars (less energy consumption), which of course did NOT lead to a general decrease in energy consumption (ever more cars for ever more people).
The bottom line is, that INCREASING energy prices will lead to the development of more energy-efficient technologies (there are enough examples for that, like, insulation technologies and so on).
At the same time the taxes (that is, the additional tax revenues on electricity) COULD be used to subsidize alternative, that is, renewable resources R&D.
By the way, as far as I know, the same thing is true for all fossile resource plants as well - at the time no one spared a second thought on adverse effects of coal plants, when much more investments in filtering and cleaning technologies should have been made.
When people were starting to worry about it, other considerations went into the equation, not the least of it being the fact that those resources are quite limited anyway.
While this IS worth a discussion, the impact isn't quite the same - in theory there is no end to the amount of NPs the world can build, while the amount of coal is rather limited.
If you compare Coal (or concentional Steam) plants with Nuclear Plants - there are simply no or nearly no new ones built, since they are not really efficient (the energy is too expensive compared to renewable energies). On the other hand the existing plants ARE a strain for the environment, but a CALCULABLE strain.
This is quite different for Nuclear Plants and their waste.
With a Coal Plant, once you put it to rest (because you substitituted it with renewable energies), you can dismantle it and be done with it.
With a Nuclear Plant, the problems just started in that case. Disposing of the plant itself and the waste it produced, is still ann unsolved problem.
The bottom line is, that there is just no reason NOT to invest heavily into renewable energies. As with a lot of products, NPPs have been put to use under the premise to solve most problems or side effects of the use "on the fly" (in order to make a huge profit). In this case it is high time to start cutting the losses.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 11:41 AM |
|
|
Nuclear Powerplants just caused the worst election results ever in Germany... we have a green Minister now. Oh god...
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 12:00 PM |
|
|
Azagal: What do you mean fear mongering?!
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 12:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, not a nice post, but an IRRELEVANT post.
Look at fuel price and fuel consumption. Current fuel price is Germany is € 1,50 per LITRE. This price has doubled within the last 15 years, mainly because of TAXES.
Fuel price due to taxes? Oil is the most politically sensitive resource on the world. I bet the price is mostly politically driven. Reagan/Fahd plot for instance.
Quote:
The bottom line is, that INCREASING energy prices will lead to the development of more energy-efficient technologies (there are enough examples for that, like, insulation technologies and so on).
At the same time the taxes (that is, the additional tax revenues on electricity) COULD be used to subsidize alternative, that is, renewable resources R&D.
But it's just wishful thinking. Right now, at present day, renewable resources don't cut.
If we're into "what might happen", why can't we also assume cold fission will be finally tamed by humanity? You're pretty picky in future seeing, friend.
Quote:
Disposing of the plant itself and the waste it produced, is still ann unsolved problem.
If nuclear energy becomes the only one left due to fossil fuels running out, I'd say dump the waste in space or on moon. I'm no scientist and I don't even know if that's an option, still, sounds like a plan to me.
Quote:
The bottom line is, that there is just no reason NOT to invest heavily into renewable energies. As with a lot of products, NPPs have been put to use under the premise to solve most problems or side effects of the use "on the fly" (in order to make a huge profit). In this case it is high time to start cutting the losses.
But the world already is investing heavily in them. They are just not enough to sustain the power needs of humanity, and probably won't be. Again, where and how? You want to optimize solar energy gathering (which still is a no-no for most of the world - geographical issues)? Further increase the number of hydro plants? (also hard to do, and destroys eco system). Or turn Europe into a windmill park? (impossible, costly, not efficient at all) ?
What's left? Geothermal? I really have no idea how do you see humanity switching to renewable sources and casting nuclear power aside. And let's skip Sci-fi.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 12:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Look at fuel price and fuel consumption. Current fuel price is Germany is € 1,50 per LITRE. This price has doubled within the last 15 years, mainly because of TAXES.
At the same time, this seemed to be a massive incentive to develop much more fuel-effiecient cars (less energy consumption), which of course did NOT lead to a general decrease in energy consumption (ever more cars for ever more people).
The bottom line is, that INCREASING energy prices will lead to the development of more energy-efficient technologies (there are enough examples for that, like, insulation technologies and so on).
At the same time the taxes (that is, the additional tax revenues on electricity) COULD be used to subsidize alternative, that is, renewable resources R&D.
Petrol prices have more than tripled in the last 15 years in Finland even with the taxes staying exactly at the same place. Current price is 1,52€ per litre. The effect of your taxes is quite debatable in this sense.
Increasing energy prices also leads to lower quality of living>more poor people>more people on social benefits and lower productivity from the industry>more cuts on companies>more unemployed people>more people on social benefits.
Quote:
By the way, as far as I know, the same thing is true for all fossile resource plants as well - at the time no one spared a second thought on adverse effects of coal plants, when much more investments in filtering and cleaning technologies should have been made.
When people were starting to worry about it, other considerations went into the equation, not the least of it being the fact that those resources are quite limited anyway.
While this IS worth a discussion, the impact isn't quite the same - in theory there is no end to the amount of NPs the world can build, while the amount of coal is rather limited.
If you compare Coal (or concentional Steam) plants with Nuclear Plants - there are simply no or nearly no new ones built, since they are not really efficient (the energy is too expensive compared to renewable energies). On the other hand the existing plants ARE a strain for the environment, but a CALCULABLE strain.
This is quite different for Nuclear Plants and their waste.
With a Coal Plant, once you put it to rest (because you substitituted it with renewable energies), you can dismantle it and be done with it.
With a Nuclear Plant, the problems just started in that case. Disposing of the plant itself and the waste it produced, is still ann unsolved problem.
Coal plants were first build in a time where people didn't even know what aerosol was, not exactly the best base to start research and develop countermeasures from that.
There is a huge amount of coal still in this world, even with china's rising use it will still last for over 300 years with the current deposits.
New coal plants built in china, didn't go looking for more recent and more precise article but there are new coal plants being built all over the world, especially in developing countries because coal is easy to use(it doesn't require much existing infrastructure), plentiful and only gas, nuclear and water power are cheaper to use. All of those are more expensive to build and with the exception of water power they require much better infrastructure to function. Water power brings it's own limitations depending on the area and it's enviromental effects can be huge depending on the needed size of the water reservoir.
Coal plants kill more people each year than nuclear plants ever have. Is this acceptable calculable strain? If an apporoximate number of people dying each year can be calculated they are just statistics and they are acceptable?
Nuclear plants that kill ZERO person per year with the very improbable chance to cause an accident that could kill people are not acceptable? Why? Because they don't kill people each year? Because there is almost 100% certainty they won't?
For the record, nuclear power plant' accident's effects can be calculated and every country in the world with nuclear power plants has calculations different levels of accidents.
As mentioned earlier in this thread nuclear waste can be stored safely in caverns or in water bunkers. With proper caution you ca dismantle a nuclear plant just like you can dismantle a coal plant. Both require specific caution and work on the land after that to make it safe but neither can be "just dismantled and be done with it".
Quote:
The bottom line is, that there is just no reason NOT to invest heavily into renewable energies. As with a lot of products, NPPs have been put to use under the premise to solve most problems or side effects of the use "on the fly" (in order to make a huge profit). In this case it is high time to start cutting the losses.
Except all the investment into renevable energies is away from other areas, especially so if we're talking about nation level investments. It's either higher taxes or lower spending on other areas, like medicine, social or education. In the current economical situation it would probably be both higher taxes and lower social and medicine spending.
I agree that renewable energies need to be developed but you can't just ignore the need for energy in times before they are a viable choice. There are countires like Finland that can produce 35%(30% if you don't count peat as renewable) of their energy through renewable energy but not nearly all countries are in such a position. Finland has a lot of rivers with big lakes and a big forest industry that makes it possible. It has it's costs though, around 900 km^2 are under water because of the water power(that's more than the state of Berlin) and the renewable energy from forest industry leftovers weakens the soil and produces approximately the same amount of greenhouse gases as coal does(not nearly as much mercury or poisons though).
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 01:24 PM |
|
|
Be careful with comparing Tjernobyl with modern (western) reactors. The amount of stupidity put into the construction of Tjernobyl is almost mind-blowing, included by not limited to not having a reactor containment building and having a cooling system, which in case of an accident went into a positive feedback, thus enhancing the heating rather than reducing it, resulting in the meltdown that happened in '87.
I don't think there's actually been any proof of deformities in children after Tjernobyl - I think all the reported incidents were either faked or within statistical limit of what would happen also under normal circumstances. That's not to say that Tjernobyl wasn't bad, and it's not to say that there are not reasons to wanting to replace nuclear power - but one should be very careful about using Tjernobyl as a template for other nuclear plants.
Looking to Japan, even as bad as things look, had the plant been comparable to Tjernobyl, we would probably have had 5 major meltdowns with subsequent radioactive leaks into the atmosphere by now.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 01:40 PM |
|
|
We must live on different planets, then.
It's interesting to read, that while already more energy is won from renewable resources worldwide than from nuclear resources, "it can't be done". All experts here on what is possible and what not.
At the same time it appears that we've all experts here for nuclear waste storage:
"As mentioned earlier in this thread nuclear waste can be stored safely in caverns or in water bunkers."
That is simply not true - or at least it requires a redefinition of what SAFE means.
What do you nuclear power supporters think about how Japan's population is feeling about nuclear power at the moment? Even though Japan is heavily relying on it? Seaflow and Osmosis Plants will definitely become an option for Japan and other countries coasts and rivers.
As my Granny used to say: most of the time buying cheap comes the most expensive.
In this case, and I know this sounds cynical, we'll have a pretty unique chance to actually see things in action. Currently Japan is (or has been) ranking #1 country in the world for life expectancy. Now ask yourself a simple question: at this point (and disregarding the earthquake and tsunami victims), do you think this will stay that way?
Another harmless question: if Fukushima will continue to spread radiation into the Pacific - and it looks that way - how will you feel eating tuna (from tins) next year? What will it cost to check all the stuff for radiation - and what will happen when they find dangerous levels of it? What about "cheap" energy then?
Lastly a word on Chernobyl.
That desaster is not SOLVED, mind you, just CONTAINED - the mantle is getting increasingly unstable and must be renewed in due course, otherwise the next desaster will occur. Just for the record - and to make it clear - Chernobyl is still a sore on the Earth, a steaming pot with a lid on it that is currently halfway stable (but needs a new lid shortly). Moreover VAST regions in Russia and the Ukraine are massively contaminated while other European countries STILL have patches of ground FAR above the levels of contamination that are considered safe: even in Germany there are still regions where you cannot plant stuff, because the ground is too contaminated.
The problem hasn't been solved.
"Cheap" energy is something COMPLETELY different.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 02:27 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker: You are just fearmongering.
The fact you are even THINKING of comparing Tsjernobyl with Fukishima is mindnumbeling. Something far worse than worst case scenario has happened, and they are just cooling it down because it will be easier to clean up.
____________
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 03:18 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 15:25, 28 Mar 2011.
|
Quote:
If you compare Coal (or concentional Steam) plants with Nuclear Plants - there are simply no or nearly no new ones built, since they are not really efficient (the energy is too expensive compared to renewable energies). On the other hand the existing plants ARE a strain for the environment, but a CALCULABLE strain.
Let's start from here - how do you imagine this happening? These plants have created and are creating hell of a polution which will not just disappear when you dismantle and "be done" with them - we'll have to deal with their wastes for who knows how many decades ahead even if they all just suddenly stop functioning (which can't and won't happen). According to you this is "calculable strain" - calculate it then! You refuse to acknowledge that the NPPs are responsible for much less damage to the environment and the health than, say, the coal plants but you continue to argue that the nuclear power is more dangerous. Sorry, you sound like a journalist who tries to write a bombastic article but has next to nothing to back up his claims except strong adjectives.
Quote:
Look at fuel price and fuel consumption. Current fuel price is Germany is € 1,50 per LITRE. This price has doubled within the last 15 years, mainly because of TAXES.
At the same time, this seemed to be a massive incentive to develop much more fuel-effiecient cars (less energy consumption), which of course did NOT lead to a general decrease in energy consumption (ever more cars for ever more people).
The bottom line is, that INCREASING energy prices will lead to the development of more energy-efficient technologies (there are enough examples for that, like, insulation technologies and so on).
At the same time the taxes (that is, the additional tax revenues on electricity) COULD be used to subsidize alternative, that is, renewable resources R&D.
We are running out of certain fossil fuels and of course new ways to consume them efficiently are being heavily researched - this is not just some accidental phenomenon that happens to be spread all over the world. A huge part of the existing economy even in the most developed countries is based on fossil fuels and the respective machines, vehicles, etc. won't start using some other energy when you snap your fingers. I.e. at this point the branches of every national economy which are most dependant on fossil fuels are not taxed high enough to force them to switch to renewable energy as the latter is still way too expensive and not universally available and, on the other hand but for the same reason, prefer to researh how to increase the cost-efficiency of the existing energy resources rather than switch to new ones. The money from the said taxes (a large portion of them at least) are being allocated to "green energy" R&D projects but unfortunately progress is not swift at all. And you still think only about the "wealthy nations" and conveniently ignore the fact that most of the world simply can't afford extra expenditures which leads us to one much broader topic that we'd better not start.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 03:52 PM |
|
|
Interesting topic.
As a scientist (admittedly, not a nuclear scientist), I see no inherent problem with nuclear power. That said, a few tidbits from around the thread:
@Skrentyz
A lot of irrelevant stuff in your post, but even so I'd like to comment on:
Quote:
There's wars in many African countries like the Ivory Coast & elsewhere on the globe, but only Libia is an "object of intervention" for the USA, because there's oil of course.
I seem to recall that Libya supplies ~2% of the world's oil reserves, and none of those are imported by the US. Unfortunately I don't have a link to that, so take it for what it is. Even so, Venezuela, also ruled by a dictator, has oil reserves that far surpass those of Libya, and the US military isn't there. So, so much for that theory.
Also:
Quote:
Why do you think North Korea hasn't been sorted out yet?
Proximity to China and the fact that North Korea has nukes might have something to do with it.
@JJ
You've put a lot of words into this thread but I can't really see what your problem with nuclear power is. All I see is a vague desire to see more money spent on alternative sources (wind, solar, etc.). Could you state your point of view succinctly?
Also:
Quote:
In 2009 nuclear power provided only 13-14% of the electricity produced worldwide (it's a lot less in terms of energy overall). More than half of that is produced in the US, Japan and France.
13-14% of the worldwide electricity used isn't really that much if you consider that renewable energies already provide EIGHTEEN percent of the world's electrical energy output...
So if renewable energy resources (which most seem to have not much of a clue about either) is "negligible", what, then, is nuclear power?
Please tell us where you get your statistics, or at least qualify the statement by saying you don't know where you got them. Not that I think you are making them up, or anything - I'd just like to know.
In addition, I'm not sure what the statistics are supposed to prove. That alternative energy sources are more viable than nuclear power? Consider - the amount of nuclear energy used worldwide might have something to do with the fact that (a) not all nations have the technology, which is inherently more difficult than a wind turbine, and (b) all the (imo unwarranted) fearmongering and anti-nuclear campaigning is stigmatizing the technology and crippling its potential.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 05:53 PM |
|
|
@ Corribus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy
Just start reading.
My point is this:
1) Long-time risks of nuclear power use with the current state of technology are incalculable due to
a) high risk of accident/desaster: 2 major desasters in 25 years does qualify for a high risk (not counting smaller accidents that MIGHT have been bigger), with the consequences of each desaster incalculable and the handling of the desasters show an inability to "clean the mess up" (Chernobyl is basically a big contaminated area that still has to be pampered and cared for lest the whole messe doesn't start again; Fukushima is still ongoing and has a high yet-to-come desaster potential)
b) unsolved problem of "waste" disposal which includes the disposal of old plants considered too dangerous to run longer.
2) Considering ALL costs of the technology, nuclear power is quite expensive in terms of money even when everything works as intended due to the high disposal costs.
That means, a lot of money is simply wasted for concentrating on a technology that FOCUSSES or BUNDLES the problems coming with energy production. An analogy would be, if cars would somehow compress all exhaust into super-dense, but extremely dangerous and poisonous waste that would have to be disposed of once a month in special deposits (the danger being an extreme environmental pollution, should the stability of the waste containers be somehow compromised), while the cars themselves would run with a minimal risk of a breakdown - but in case of a breakdown there would be a danger of a big explosion with shrapnell effect.
That in turn means, that EVERYTHING has to be done to develop "clean" technologies for energy production, and when I say EVERYTHING I mean that this should have top priority, which in turn means, MONEY must flow into the R&D of it.
Since already 18% are coming from renewable sources, I suppose that all ADDITIONAL energy needed in the future, should come from renewable sources - where is the problem?
After all, there are TWO areas for R&D: lowering energy consumption by making things more "efficient", and developing new and more efficient ways to "harvest" energy from renewable sources.
The trouble is, even though this would be possible, it's not done, and I suspect (and there is a lot of evidence for it) that the reasons for this have a lot more to do with greed than anything else.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 07:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
By the way, all this, no, we cannot substitute all this energy with renewable sources... nonsense.
I am reminded of the great Adam Savage when he said: "I reject your reality and subsitute my own!"
No. It is the truth. It has been calculated by scientists at multiple universities. Renewable Energy cannot, ever, suply the current energy demand. The only way it could, was if the world's population was decimated. Because lowering the energy demand is just as impossible otherwise.
I say,deciamte the population.Green energy or green mushroom cloud...
Why say NPP are dangerous? Which idiot came to the idea to let japan build NPP on their territory? A country that constantly gets shaken by an earthquake, yet they field NPP.Aint this stupid?
NPP are greener than CPP's.
Continuing with CPP's will ruin the earth just as a radiation leak does aswell with global warming.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 07:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
a) high risk of accident/desaster: 2 major desasters in 25 years
Both of the 2 accidents in the last 25 years was completely avoidable, and they only happen because people got this silly idea that tempting fate is GOOD.
Nothing more is going to happen in Japan either.
Your entire argument is based on silly silly fearmongering and more fear along with ignorance.
Liste up: Walking down stairs is hazardous! Then why do we walk down stairs each day? Because we have our eyes opened, equal step lenght, rails to keep hands on, the floor being not slippery, we got our hands free, etc.
Hence: Tie down your hands, get a blindfold, get earplugs, get drunk, and remove the railing of a staircase. It will turn into a accident i tell you!
Also known as tempting fate.
I agree that we should investigate in more diverse types of power, but the difference is simple: We can build more or less foolproff powerplants with nuclear power, that supply energy, that can be used today.
Tidal? Recent breaktrough.
Normal water? Requires special conditions to be present.
Solar? Equipment to frail for longterm and the energi aquire rate is quite bad.
Wind? Requires special conditions.
Geothermal? Requires special conditions.
Etc...........
We have coal, which is a lot more dangerous that nuclear, and we have nuclear as "viable" alternatives for most of the worlds population.
All I am saying is that your argument is silly.
____________
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 08:17 PM |
|
|
@Seraphim:
Quote:
I say,deciamte the population.Green energy or green mushroom cloud...
It was only a matter of time before some... individual brought up population decimation. Every internet forum has one of them. I suppose since you're so eager to endorse population decimation, we'll start with you then. Sound good?
Quote:
Why say NPP are dangerous? Which idiot came to the idea to let japan build NPP on their territory? A country that constantly gets shaken by an earthquake, yet they field NPP.Aint this stupid?
NPP are greener than CPP's.
Continuing with CPP's will ruin the earth just as a radiation leak does as well with global warming.
Probably the same idiot that said "There's over 100 million of us stuck on a volcanic archipelago, with the most compact industry in the world." Relying solely on fossil fuels would be a greater concern, and renewable energy continues to be inadequate. There's not a single country that faces the challenges that Japan faces when it comes to energy supply, so I doubt they really care too much about people pointing their fingers and *****ing at them from their ivory towers. Maybe it was stupid, but they're in a rather difficult position.
And as a general open question:
What exactly is "the planet", that I should feel obligated to bend my knee to it? Preventing severe climate change and mass pollution is practical from a survivalist standpoint, but I have zero problem damaging the planet to a manageable extent. The planet is not my mother. This is just the rock that I happened to get crapped out on.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 08:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And what exactly is "the planet", that I should feel obligated to bend my knee to it?
God equivalent that greens worship. Because they are too smart to believe in God. obviously.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 08:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
a) high risk of accident/desaster: 2 major desasters in 25 years
Both of the 2 accidents in the last 25 years was completely avoidable...
LOL. Basically EVERY desastrous human action has been completely avoidable - especially in hindsight.
Therefore that's - sadly - not a valid point. Fact is, that crap is happening all the time, although it shouldn't.
I mean, that's what makes this so, well, ridiculous. All those claims about how safe this or that is and how improbable a desaster is - all useless, because time and again it is proven that IF crap CAN happen, it WILL happen, no matter how avoidable it would seem.
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 08:37 PM |
|
|
I've been driving for 10 years, and I have yet to die in a car accident.
No, if bad things CAN happen, they won't necessarily WILL happen, unless you're testing it over an infinite period of time.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 28, 2011 08:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
a) high risk of accident/desaster: 2 major desasters in 25 years
Both of the 2 accidents in the last 25 years was completely avoidable...
LOL. Basically EVERY desastrous human action has been completely avoidable - especially in hindsight.
Therefore that's - sadly - not a valid point. Fact is, that crap is happening all the time, although it shouldn't.
I mean, that's what makes this so, well, ridiculous. All those claims about how safe this or that is and how improbable a desaster is - all useless, because time and again it is proven that IF crap CAN happen, it WILL happen, no matter how avoidable it would seem.
Then why do you not kill yourself? To save the world from further accidents?
Invoking Murphy's law is snowty. Because it reallies on 1 single component: That there is a lose screw or major security failure somewhere.
And snow hindsight: They was already seeing Chernobyl could happen when they build the plant, that is why they made security guidelines.
Basically: Enforce security guidelines, prefferably by capital punishment or similar extreme levels.
You could use Murphy's law against litteraly anything, but it does not make the argument valid.
____________
|
| |
|
|
