Home | Community | Message Board


World Seed Supply
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop: Portable Greenhouse

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 4 years, 10 months
Nuclear revival
    #3984581 - 03/29/05 11:24 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Nuclear revival

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

One of life's more pleasurable experiences is watching environmentalists paint themselves into a corner.

Take energy, for example. Environmentalists say they support energy independence for America, but their proposed solutions run from nonsensical to irrational. They say the burning of fossil fuels causes pollution and global warming. They also are against developing more domestic energy sources -- witness their hysteria over drilling in the Arctic Nincompoop Wasteland Refuse -- because each drop of oil prolongs the age of the internal-combustion engine.

But the renewable sources they promote have serious deficiencies. The technologies behind fuel cells, solar power and biomass have not advanced sufficiently to supplant gasoline, heating oil, natural gas and coal anytime soon. Meanwhile, environmentalists are schizophrenic when it comes to other non-polluting sources. They love wind power as long as windmills aren't built in places where the wind blows (ridge lines, mountain passes, Nantucket Sound, etc.). They like hydro, except when it requires damming rivers.

Most of all, however, they hate nuclear power, which neither fouls the air and water nor emits greenhouse gases. No greener energy exists, yet environmentalists scream "Three Mile Island" anytime anyone brings it up. Well, they'd better get used to people bringing it up because nuclear power is poised for comeback.

A conference on nuclear power this month in Paris closed with most of the 70 participating nations agreeing nuclear power will be a major player in the 21st century. Interest is especially high in the emerging economies of Asia, where 18 of the world's 27 new nuclear plants are under construction. The United States and several European nations may follow.

Ironically, the renewed interest overseas is rooted in the Kyoto Protocol, the international global-warming treaty that is the cause célèbre of the environmental movement. Kyoto requires developed nations to curtail their greenhouse-gas emissions, and since electrical generation produces at least a third of the world's warming gases, signatory nations naturally would look first at their power grids for potential reductions. The nuclear-power industry says if the world's 442 nuclear plants were closed and replaced by fossil-fuel-fired plants, 600 million tons of additional carbon would be released annually -- twice what Kyoto aims to reduce.

But Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and all the rest don't want nuclear to be a weapon in combating climate change because of their boilerplate fears about meltdowns, radiation releases, disposal of spent fuel and terrorism. But in America at least, those issues have been or are being addressed through technological advances, standardization of design of nuclear plants and the development of the Yucca Mountain radioactive-waste depository. Though environmentalists think nuclear plants are sitting ducks for terrorists, the facilities are very difficult to blow up, even by crashing jetliners into them.

The nuclear issue hits home in Connecticut because of the problems it has had with energy generation and because it has signed the unconstitutional Kyoto Lite treaty with other New England states and the eastern Canadian provinces.

Without nuclear, pollution will get worse and the state will be unable to meet its obligations under Kyoto Lite; with nuclear, the air and water would be cleaner, and the state might have a chance to meet the agreement's goals.

http://www.rep-am.com/

-------------------------------------------------------------

I am a big fan of nuclear power. I was wondering what other people thought about it. And why don't at least some environmental groups back nuclear power. I love the environment and I think that nuclear power would help protect it.
Do You Support Nuclear Power?
Users may choose only one (31 total votes)
Yes
-
25 81%
No
-
6 19%
Votes accepted from (03/29/05 02:00 PM) to (04/07/05 11:23 AM)
You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 month, 2 days
Re: Nuclear revival [Re: JesusChrist]
    #3984623 - 03/29/05 11:46 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

For some reason it won't let me vote.


I am all for nuclear power. Our technology has advanced to the point that it is one of the least environmentally hazardous sources of power, especially amongst the ones that can economically compete with coal, oil, hydro, etc...


The best answer of course is to reduce consumption.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 month, 2 days
Re: Nuclear revival [Re: JesusChrist]
    #3984634 - 03/29/05 11:50 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

electrical generation produces at least a third of the world's warming gases





That should say a third of that which is produced by human activity, which is about 10% that of what the earth itself produces continuously.


So about 1/30 of all greenhouse gasses, not 1/3.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMadtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,286
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 5 months, 18 days
Re: Nuclear revival [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #3984677 - 03/29/05 12:12 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

I'm an environmentalist, and down with nuclear power.


--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action.  If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it.  - Ernest Hemingway

If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it.  In the law courts, in business, in government.  There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent.    -Cormac MacCarthy

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.  - Aeschylus


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineunbeliever
Yo Daddy!
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: Nuclear revival [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #3984686 - 03/29/05 12:15 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Baby_Hitler said:
For some reason it won't let me vote.


I am all for nuclear power. Our technology has advanced to the point that it is one of the least environmentally hazardous sources of power, especially amongst the ones that can economically compete with coal, oil, hydro, etc...


The best answer of course is to reduce consumption.




I am more or less in agreement with you here. Though I think a more serious effort to basically work the nuclear problem to death is in order. That is to say, a continued process of improving the efficiency and safety.

That said I think our energy "solution" will not come from just one source. We should employ different solutions to different areas. In states like north and south dakota, texas, kansas, montana, etc where the potential wind energy is high, that's the place to drop all the wind mills. In other areas where geothermal heating is feasible that should be implimented. And etc with hydroelectric, nuclear, etc.

It should be a tiered system, starting with the "greenest" most environmentally friendly solutions first. Burning oil and coal should be at the bottom and only used in emergencies or in areas where it would be cost and efficiency prohibitive to have other energy production methods.


--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 4 years, 10 months
Re: Nuclear revival [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #3985062 - 03/29/05 02:06 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

I don't know what I did to the time schedule on the poll, but you can vote now.

As I said before I am a big fan of nuclear power. That doesn't mean that we can't also work on alternative energy. The fact is that right now the other alternatives aren't yet viable. I am confident that in the future technology will progress to the point that they will be.

But in the meantime I think we should build a bunch of nuclear plants that can cover our ass for the next 50 years.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 month, 2 days
Re: Nuclear revival [Re: JesusChrist]
    #3985162 - 03/29/05 02:27 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

We could just do nothing.

That would drive up the cost of energy, thus reducing demand.


I guess the "enviro-nuts" are right after all.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinelackobreath
Cannabis Man
Registered: 01/27/05
Posts: 517
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
Re: Nuclear revival [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #3985296 - 03/29/05 02:50 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

don't nuclear power plants produce....nuclear waste?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 month, 2 days
Re: Nuclear revival [Re: lackobreath]
    #3985462 - 03/29/05 03:19 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Yes, they produce small amounts of very very dangerous by-products.

Small compared to that produced by fossil fuel.

Tons versus billions of tons.


Just bury it and stay away from it. The origional fuel came from the earth, and to the earth it is returned. We would be fortunate indeed if we could accomplish that with fossil fuel waste.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblepsilomonkey
Twisted brainwrong of a oneoff man mental

Registered: 08/08/03
Posts: 812
Loc: Airstrip One
Re: Nuclear revival [Re: lackobreath]
    #3985501 - 03/29/05 03:25 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

I like to think of myself as an environmentalist, I support nuclear power.

People like to talk about "Three Mile Island", yes the plant had a meltdown, but the containment worked. This is an example of a "successful failure", it shows that nuclear power can be safe, and we have come a long way since then.

Yes, nuclear power creates waste, but you stack that up against the waste and damage caused by fossil fuels. Even if you don't subscribe to the man made global warming theory, acid rain, oil slicks etc, you will find that nuclear is mega-clean compared to burning shit.

The days of dumping nuclear waste at sea are long gone, with responsible waste handling and modern technology nuclear is a green option. The amount of energy that can be extracted from a small amount of fuel is vast (c squared is a very large number)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,243
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 5 months, 13 days
Re: Nuclear revival [Re: lackobreath]
    #3985522 - 03/29/05 03:28 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

lackobreath said:
don't nuclear power plants produce....nuclear waste?




Don't worry...I'm sure the military can always use more depleted Uranium Shells to fuck up some other country.


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSWEDEN
Miracle of Science

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 2,577
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 2 months, 6 days
Re: Nuclear revival [Re: psilomonkey]
    #3985554 - 03/29/05 03:32 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

yes, three mile island was only a partial meltdown, nothing like Chenobyl (sp?) yet environmentalists in the political arena use this as a crutch to try and suspend nuclear power in America. It is cleaner and safer and more efficient than anything we've got so far. If only these environmentalists could stop panicking for long enough to realise that nuclear power is the answer to most of our biosphere's pollution woes.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineblaze2
The Witness
Male

Registered: 12/20/02
Posts: 1,883
Loc: San Antonio, TX
Last seen: 5 years, 3 hours
Re: Nuclear revival [Re: SWEDEN]
    #3985672 - 03/29/05 03:54 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

hey Im an envrionmentalist(read: hippy tree hugger) and I am all for nuclear energy man. I'm well educated and I understand that it is very safe and much more efficient, plus it would get rid of all the old coal burning plants. The only thing I worry about is terrorists, but terrorists shouldnt run our lives so I say go for it. I agree most "environmentalists" are morons but some of us understand man. So take it easy on us. Peace

blaze2


--------------------
"Religion without science is blind, Science without religion is lame." Albert Einstein

"peace is not maintained through force it is acheived through intelligence." Albert Einstein

"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Nuclear revival [Re: JesusChrist]
    #3985792 - 03/29/05 04:19 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

As a fervent environmentalist, I'm very much in favor of nuclear power. It's the best option we have at the moment.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBoccherini
Trapped in aPr?lude

Registered: 02/15/05
Posts: 24
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
Re: Nuclear revival [Re: JesusChrist]
    #3985938 - 03/29/05 05:09 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

I'm certainly in favor of nuclear energy, and I'm extremely happy that a few companies in the US have started to look into the licensing process to build a power plant. A few weeks ago I heard that Duke Energy is seriously considering building a plant in NC, to be completed in ten years; they just have to pass the licensing with the NRC, and that takes a few years. There are two other companies that I've heard about in the past year also.

The two main arguments environmentalists have against nuclear power is 1) the risk of a meltdown with radiation released and 2) nuclear waste.

I don't think 1 holds water anymore, with the multiple safety backups, computer and containment structures. I understand the cause for concern with nuclear waste, but there is an EXTREMELY good alternative to storing the waste in Nevada.

When fuel rods are considered spent and must be replaced, there is still a good deal of U-238 left that hasn't fissioned. These fuel rods can be reprocessed in breeder reactors, and the U-238 fissions and produces plutonium, which will also fission excellently. The spent rods from the breeder reactors can then be taken out, the various elements seperated (and sold back to industry), and the radioactive waste can be stored underground. This recycling process reduces the amount of nuclear waste by a factor of two at least (can't remember the exact number).

But Jimmy Carter, being a nuclear engineer, decided that the significant amount of plutonium in breeder reactors was too dangerous to allow in commercial use, so breeder reactors were outlawed in the US. France has been using this technology for a while now, with no incidents.

I think building more reactors around the world is great, but the next big step in nuclear power should be using breeder reactors. Then maybe, in 200-300 years when we're out of uranium, we may have solved fusion by then. :smile:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSWEDEN
Miracle of Science

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 2,577
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 2 months, 6 days
Re: Nuclear revival [Re: blaze2]
    #3986159 - 03/29/05 06:40 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Weeeeell, I'm not saying all environmentalists are like that. Only the ones in the Washington spotlight. Why do these panicky loons, a minority among a very talented and diverse group of enviro-friendly people, get all the media's attention then? They are the ones in the lobby bitching out the senators. If we only had some more moderate environmentalists on capitol hill, who are in favor of gradual change and who can recognize the current need for pollution-producing energy sources. The world's economies would grind to a halt without this energy. Why not replace most or all of it with nuclear power?


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJon
Registered: 06/28/03
Posts: 961
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
Re: Nuclear revival [Re: SWEDEN]
    #3986249 - 03/29/05 07:21 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Would it be ignorant to think that the US is holding back the oil in order to adapt our coming generation to save the economy? I havent seen a single change in the gas prices and im thinking they will hold back on gas until the economy stabilizes itself using an alternative motive. From what I know or from what I hear, the US has a large amount of oil they are saving for a rainy day. It wouldnt hurt to assume that the oil refineries in Iraq are also being saved for a rainy day. When finally the entire nation is rich in its economy again, oil will return to the business and as a result, people begin to get rich. I doubt the nations are in debt and are gearing towards a more conservative approach to strengthen the nation. Im thinking the nation is probably holding back money on certain rescources for various reasons, in case of a shortage in natural rescources, the govt would be rich enough to put nuclear powerplants everywhere, and cause a technological revolution of saving the enviroment that could have happened many years before. This just keeps adding to the govt.'s cash box, and thats basically their intention, to keep the money coming in.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBleaK
paradox
Registered: 06/24/02
Posts: 1,583
Last seen: 3 years, 7 months
Re: Nuclear revival [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #3987901 - 03/30/05 12:06 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Baby_Hitler said:
The best answer of course is to reduce consumption.




--------------------
"You cannot trust in law, unless you can trust in people. If you can trust in people, you don't need law." -J. Mumma


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: Nuclear revival [Re: JesusChrist]
    #3987982 - 03/30/05 12:15 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

We're basically fucked in terms of economic, reliable and environmentally-friendly sources of energy, so I am all for nuclear power until scientific advancements allow something better to come along. Our technological knowledge increases daily, and we can use it to make nuclear power not only safer, but to get rid of the polluting fossil fuel energy sources and provide people with economic energy and the earth with a safer alternative.

Provided no disasters happen, that is. The wildcard of nuclear power is that, while it is extremely useful and healthy comparatively if all goes as planned, if a disaster happens it really happens. That's the chance we may need to take though, and we must simply use science and technology to safeguard against the possibility as much as we can.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineblaze2
The Witness
Male

Registered: 12/20/02
Posts: 1,883
Loc: San Antonio, TX
Last seen: 5 years, 3 hours
Re: Nuclear revival [Re: Ravus]
    #3988338 - 03/30/05 01:23 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

"Then maybe, in 200-300 years when we're out of uranium, we may have solved fusion by then."
Boccherini


Fusion is just around the corner man. it will happen within a hundred years. and the fuel that will power the fusion reactors is on the moon. Its called Helium3. As soon as they can figure it fusion, look for the big oil companies to stake claims on the moon. I wouldnt be surprised if that isnt one of the motives behind Bush's space plan. Get the government to figure out how to live in space and on the moon, so that when the time comes the private industry wont have to do any of the work. Oh well, I'm just happy that someone (yes even if it is Bush) is pushing for the colonizing of space.

blaze2


--------------------
"Religion without science is blind, Science without religion is lame." Albert Einstein

"peace is not maintained through force it is acheived through intelligence." Albert Einstein

"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Amazon Shop: Portable Greenhouse

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* USA iniitiates a 'nuclear revival' carbonhoots 592 10 12/08/03 02:59 PM
by afoaf
* Bush: U.S. needs more nuclear power plants.
( 1 2 all )
lonestar2004 2,494 36 06/25/05 02:01 PM
by zappaisgod
* Russia delays start-up of Iran nuclear power plant by one ye wingnutx 542 1 10/13/03 09:08 PM
by lysergic
* John McCain calls for 700+ new nuclear plants costing $4 trillion
( 1 2 all )
lonestar2004 3,661 31 05/24/08 05:28 AM
by Seuss
* How to Deal With a Psychopath: Give Him Nuclear Bombs ekomstop 358 0 09/24/04 09:20 AM
by ekomstop
* Nuclear Power Plants -- Shut ' em down or build even more?
( 1 2 all )
AsanteA 2,806 24 09/10/05 04:40 PM
by Asante
* Heretical Position On Nuclear Power
( 1 2 all )
Luddite 3,370 38 04/22/08 06:59 AM
by Seuss
* nuclear energy wilshire 389 4 01/31/06 08:28 AM
by Sorted

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
31 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
The Best Salvia
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.09 seconds spending 0.042 seconds on 29 queries.