Let's talk about energy....

[kinggovernor]

I believe that environmentalists really do their cause a disservice by not jumping on the nuclear bandwagon. Our country will not be ready to run on renewable energy like wind or solar for a generation or more, but we could cut our greenhouse emissions tremendously if we used a nuclear energy plan as forceful as france ( i know i know). When France saw the OPEC oil scare in the 70s they decided to go nuclear, and that is where they get the majority of their energy from. I think we should follow their lead and get away from burning coal that pollutes so much and away from oil and gas which I think everyone can agree is a great thing.

What do y'all think?

[Scrum]

Totally agree.

Not just environmentalists though, I would also blame NIMBYist as well.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Totally agree.

Not just environmentalists though, I would also blame NIMBYist as well.

if they really want to be a NIMBYist, you should have to pay an extra fee(huge) for refusing to allow a power plant to built close by and still trying to get power from that grid.

[Pro Street]

I think most environmentallists support nuclear energy now that meltdowns aren't an issue..

good luck getting the coal and oil industry to get on board.

[Thorgrim]

Environmentalist reject it for two reasons:

1) People will add a few nuke plants, say we've solved the problem and global warming was a hoax (even though we'll still be dependant on oil from terrorist sympathizers, aka motivez)

2) People will fight over whose backyard it goes into, when all that debate and energy can go into advancing other alternative fuels...you say all those advancements are decades away...why? Are we waiting for a breakthrough in technology or something? We simply aren't committed, if we made a huge investment into alternative energies, we'd get there a lot faster

It was over a decade ago we had a real solid electric car...a car that with the proper investment could be made to easily plug into your home outlet...how easy is that? Where did that go? It just phased away...only to come back 10 years later with minimal backing...only time finally wore them down

That's total BS, we shouldn't wait for a crisis before we develop these projects, we need to encourage if not directly fund those kind of projects, if we can bail out the airlines, we can fund alternative/green technology...I bet any money Japan would be willing to go in with us on a joint venture

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

I think most environmentallists support nuclear energy now that meltdowns aren't an issue..

good luck getting the coal and oil industry to get on board.

we shouldn't need to get them on board, fuck them. Their products are destroying our environment and we should try to cut back on them and eventually eliminate them

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Environmentalist reject it for two reasons:

1) People will add a few nuke plants, say we've solved the problem and global warming was a hoax (even though we'll still be dependant on oil from terrorist sympathizers, aka motivez)

how about we try really really hard to not turn this into a partisan thread

2) People will fight over whose backyard it goes into, when all that debate and energy can go into advancing other alternative fuels...you say all those advancements are decades away...why? Are we waiting for a breakthrough in technology or something? We simply aren't committed, if we made a huge investment into alternative energies, we'd get there a lot faster

we don't have the right technology to depend on renewable energy as our primary source. Right now we use oil for 96% of our transportation energy, that is going to take decades to change. There is a plan called 25x25, that is have 25% of our transportation energy come from renewable energy by 2025, and even that is considered a super ambitious plan. Right now we get around 19-20% of our energy from nuclear, but if we start building many new plants, we cut get that number up to where france is at, like 70%+.

It was over a decade ago we had a real solid electric car...a car that with the proper investment could be made to easily plug into your home outlet...how easy is that? Where did that go? It just phased away...only to come back 10 years later with minimal backing...only time finally wore them down

I agreed, but the car 10 years ago wasn't feasible, because the charge time took too long and the price was too high. Hopefully this next generation will come through with the things it promises. The backing for electric cars is going to increase as hybrids become more popular and as the price of gas continues to rise.

That's total BS, we shouldn't wait for a crisis before we develop these projects, we need to encourage if not directly fund those kind of projects, if we can bail out the airlines, we can fund alternative/green technology...I bet any money Japan would be willing to go in with us on a joint venture

I totally agree

[Ardentfrost]

I've always liked nuclear power... as far back as I can remember.

NIMBYists shouldn't be too much of a problem considering how far away power can be pumped. The plant has to be near SOMEONE, but not too near... and it's good for a town since it brings in jobs (hell, my home town's growth over the past 50 years can be largely attributed to a nuclear power plant... and nuke plant but also power )

What alternative energy methods are these anti-nuclear environmentalists promoting? Wind power is so inefficient it isn't even funny; factor in how it can't be used everywhere and that it takes up shit tons of space and it's just unrealistic. Solar power is pretty good... it's inefficient but sunshine is plentiful enough to make up for it. however it's expensive (prohibitively so). It takes someone years to make up cost on installing solar panels on their roof and making their house mostly powered by them. I'm not saying that there can't be technological advancements... I know (for a fact since my college does this) that people are out there researching that form of power. But something really major would have to be discovered for solar to make an impact.

Electric cars are fine and all, but where do you think the power for them comes from? We still burn nonrenewable, enviro-harmful resources to get it. An electric car takes the gas out of the pump and puts it in the power plant. imo, to move forward, we need to start from the top: where we get electricity. If we move away from non-renewable resources there, I think the rest will follow shortly.

I am not an environmentalist, but I do like the idea of moving away from resources that we cannot rely on and that may harm us in some way (be it health problems from emissions or global warming). Nuclear is extremely safe... even when the technology wasn't as good as it is now, accidents were VERY rare. I do not fear the technology at all, and never had a problem living within meltdown range of one (for the first 18 years of my life)

[avsp]

Accidents will happen.

How many accidents world-wide before it becomes a major problem?
If the rate of accidents stays the same, (per reactor year ), as has been the case then how long will it be before the raised radiation levels effectively curtail the growth in average life expectancy?

if nuke powered electricty was to power the worlds cars then how much nuke waste would be produced?

It is the waste issue that matters most, IMO.. There seems to be no adequate solution.

The 'nuke battery', (stone beds? i forget the proper term), has some appeal as they are so much cheaper etc.

There are also very great security (& thus social) implications to this course of action that may not be welcome. This is without even considering the implications of enforcing any international regulation scheme, ..., surely dreaders of NWO will pass out in ire at this.

Would it not be advantageous to accept the nuke power is going to be required but to try to maximise the use of other non-fossil sources in order to minmise the long-term potential hazardous waste & 'peak uranium' problems?

Geo-thermal power seems very attractive to me as it , potentially, sidesteps virtually all these problems, but its not been scaled up properly

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by avsp

Accidents will happen.

How many accidents world-wide before it becomes a major problem?
If the rate of accidents stays the same, (per reactor year ), as has been the case then how long will it be before the raised radiation levels effectively curtail the growth in average life expectancy?

the two accidents that have happened were because of gross negligence by the operator. Three Mile Island was contained because of the good Western engineering, Chernobyl was not because of shitty Russian engineering.

if nuke powered electricty was to power the worlds cars then how much nuke waste would be produced?

It is the waste issue that matters most, IMO.. There seems to be no adequate solution.

in 30 years of nuclear power plants, the US has only enough nuclear "waste" to cover a football feet 9 feet high. And it is not completely waste either, many other countries re-use the fuel (that is how you get military grade nukes) so the US could start doing that.

The 'nuke battery', (stone beds? i forget the proper term), has some appeal as they are so much cheaper etc.

There are also very great security (& thus social) implications to this course of action that may not be welcome. This is without even considering the implications of enforcing any international regulation scheme, ..., surely dreaders of NWO will pass out in ire at this.

better than global warming

Would it not be advantageous to accept the nuke power is going to be required but to try to maximise the use of other non-fossil sources in order to minmise the long-term potential hazardous waste & 'peak uranium' problems?

Geo-thermal power seems very attractive to me as it , potentially, sidesteps virtually all these problems, but its not been scaled up properly

the efficiency is too low with the current technogoly. The solution this decade and the next to curb global warming and end our addiction to oil is nuclear power.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

the two accidents that have happened were because of gross negligence by the operator. Three Mile Island was contained because of the good Western engineering, Chernobyl was not because of shitty Russian engineering.

in 30 years of nuclear power plants, the US has only enough nuclear "waste" to cover a football feet 9 feet high. And it is not completely waste either, many other countries re-use the fuel (that is how you get military grade nukes) so the US could start doing that.

better than global warming

the efficiency is too low with the current technogoly. The solution this decade and the next to curb global warming and end our addiction to oil is nuclear power.

Did Bush end up signing that bill that would open up new reactors?

About the only thing I have agree with him on is this.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

the two accidents that have happened were because of gross negligence by the operator. Three Mile Island was contained because of the good Western engineering, Chernobyl was not because of shitty Russian engineering.

there have been many many more accidents than those two major ones. The UK programe has so far resulted in several miles of coast that is sufficiently contaminated to need armed guards to stop people stealing it, IIUC.

My point is that there is a finite amount of contamination that can be endured before there are significant consequences for humanity. I dont know what this amount is, i was just trying to define it

in 30 years of nuclear power plants, the US has only enough nuclear "waste" to cover a football feet 9 feet high. And it is not completely waste either, many other countries re-use the fuel (that is how you get military grade nukes) so the US could start doing that.

this seems a bit weird, ..., though I dont doubt you. The storgage facilities for the UKs waste covers acres. Presumably this is because of our spent fuel re-processing plant. We re-process Japanese waste, (amongst others), IIUC the plant still isnt economically viable & the vitrification process for the re-processing waste isnt effective as was hoped

Also the ammount of nuke electricity produced by the US in the last 30 years would power how much car travel? My point to that world-wide the amount of waste may well be huge. I just wish I had the wit & resources to put figures to my 'back of the envelope' calculations to get a grip on the scale of the problems

better than global warming

agreed. but wouldnt it be prudent to consider the implications of "Country Qwe has bought what are now considered poorly designed & shoddily built reactors, action needs to be taken to force them to rectify the situation for they refuse to do so otherwise"
or
"Country Asd wont allow inspection of their suspected badly maintained reactors coz of various vested interests. What is to be done"
or
"Country Zxc is claiming that accusations that their reactors are unsafe, improperly run & are being used to make weapons are politically motivated & they are withdrawing from all international treaties, inspection regimes, the UN & cancelling their OT subscrition. What is to be done? Or shall we just let the lack of any prior consensus paralyse us into inaction thus allowing our fears to come true, ..., or if not that then to allow our fears to drive us to ill-considered, ineffective action".
I'm sure we can all think of even worse examples

the efficiency is too low with the current technogoly. The solution this decade and the next to curb global warming and end our addiction to oil is nuclear power.

This may well be the case. However there are advantages in taking a longer-term view.

[Ardentfrost]

10 years ago a method of waste treatment was developed that turns it into a glass-like substance. Gone are the days of putting it in barrels and burying it. The "glass" can just be tossed out into the desert for 30 years.

But even if those days weren't gone (and, of course, the glass still has to sit somewhere for 30 years til the radioactivity subsides), containment and waste management is a part of the cost of the energy. We pay for it when we go that route, and it's STILL cheaper and cleaner than burning nonrenewables.

Barnwell, SC is a city that got (and still gets as far as I know) a good deal of money to store and contain nuclear waste from various plants (including but not limited to SRS, which is fairly close to the city). Again, it's part of the monetary price we pay.

Plus, with newer technology nuclear power is so much safer than it was during any of the problems that have happened in the past. The only reason people are scared is because a huge deal was made out of it to make it seem more dangerous that it ever was.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I believe that environmentalists really do their cause a disservice by not jumping on the nuclear bandwagon. Our country will not be ready to run on renewable energy like wind or solar for a generation or more, but we could cut our greenhouse emissions tremendously if we used a nuclear energy plan as forceful as france ( i know i know). When France saw the OPEC oil scare in the 70s they decided to go nuclear, and that is where they get the majority of their energy from. I think we should follow their lead and get away from burning coal that pollutes so much and away from oil and gas which I think everyone can agree is a great thing.

What do y'all think?

You hit the nail on the head. All the clean sources of Energy the enviro decides its bad.

Nuclear = "what are we gonna do with the waste?"
I dunno, how about put it back in the ground where we got it?

Wind = "They're big ugly and they impede the flight of birds and disrupt migratory patterns" (this actually happened here in Oklahoma, thank you wackos!)
This is just ridiculous...

Natural Gas = "Drilling for gas disrupts the "badlands" and the "plains" and can cause significant eyesores to the natural landscape"
Natural gas burns extremely clean and we have ample supply in North America and new technologies are helping it burn even cleaner.

Clean Coal = "It's dirty and disgusting, who cares that we have 1000 years worth of coal energy in this country its dirty!"
Clean coal still isn't up to par with the three prior sources in terms of cleanliness, obviously wind power and nuke power are VERY clean, almost zero emmissions on nuke plants. Clean coal has come a tremendous distance in just a few decades, why halt progress?


Using oil to make electricity and heat is a 100% waste of oil IMO and using it in our cars is almost as big a waste. We've gotta get off of oil in terms of electricity and travel because we use oil in almost every part of our daily lives, from plastics, to tires, to powering your home.

[6SpeedTA95]

Oh on the nuke thing, you can now reuse the spent fuel up to four times for tremendous amounts of power generation.

[JaJae]

I agree we need more nuclear power in this country. If the majority of our country switched over to nuclear power there would be less demand on oil making it cheaper. Our electric bills would be cheaper, our gas at the pumps would be cheaper, etc.

And it would help us move off our oil dependency as well as our greenhouse emissions. Where I live in NJ there's a very high cancer rate. All this shit needs to go. We need to move to something cleaner. Have Nasa dump the waste into outerspace for all I care. It's still better than what we're doing now.

Also the waist isn't that bad, we're housing it in barrels and alumnimum sheds as it is. I wouldn't drink it, but if handled properly it's not gonna kill ya. More people die in coal accidents and cancer than from nuclear power. The greenies need to shutup on the health stuff. Cancer rates are much higher around coal power plants than a nuclear one because nuclear power results in power + water. Coal power results in power + smog. It's amazing they're rather keep the oil/coal/smog alive.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I agree we need more nuclear power in this country. If the majority of our country switched over to nuclear power there would be less demand on oil making it cheaper. Our electric bills would be cheaper, our gas at the pumps would be cheaper, etc.

And it would help us move off our oil dependency as well as our greenhouse emissions. Where I live in NJ there's a very high cancer rate. All this shit needs to go. We need to move to something cleaner. Have Nasa dump the waste into outerspace for all I care. It's still better than what we're doing now.

Also the waist isn't that bad, we're housing it in barrels and alumnimum sheds as it is. I wouldn't drink it, but if handled properly it's not gonna kill ya. More people die in coal accidents and cancer than from nuclear power. The greenies need to shutup on the health stuff. Cancer rates are much higher around coal power plants than a nuclear one because nuclear power results in power + water. Coal power results in power + smog. It's amazing they're rather keep the oil/coal/smog alive.

wtfcancerstat???

[Pro Street]

I don't see how wind farms are considered an eyesore.. they look great

wind farm - Google Image Search

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

wtfcancerstat???

Pennsylvania's Dirty Coal Power on Its Way Out

The two power plants have a history of Clean Air Act violations, the county currently exceeds federal standards for ozone pollution, and state officials have proposed that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designate Greene County an unhealthful area due to high particulate matter pollution levels.

"Greene County is a real world example of the harmful consequences of government inaction," said Erik Olson, an NRDC senior attorney and coauthor of the report. "Residents there are exposed to air and water pollutants that can cause cancer, respiratory and gastrointestinal diseases, nervous system damage, birth defects and even premature death - mostly from mines and power plants that