The Debate

[Arshes Nei]

Hopefully when this is over all the projections about how good or bad the winner is will go away and we can focus on whether or not that winner is actually doing something.

[Opilione]

Did you know we have designed reactors that cannot actually melt down?

You know they invented this boat, that couldn't sink? It was called the Titanic, I think... Maybe you've heard of it?

As for nuclear power, it's the waste issue. It is possible to dispose of waste in an environmentally friendly way. But it's too costly and since the nuclear power corporations are, well, corporations, they don't want to pay for the safe disposal of their crap when they could just dispose of it cheaply and ineffectively.

[wassermelone]

You know they invented this boat, that couldn't sink? It was called the Titanic, I think... Maybe you've heard of it?

I knew someone was going to bring that up. But its not actually possible for it to melt down in the same way a 17th century ship of the line could not possibly have an engine explode on it. Its just an entirely different beast.

As for nuclear power, it's the waste issue. It is possible to dispose of waste in an environmentally friendly way. But it's too costly and since the nuclear power corporations are, well, corporations, they don't want to pay for the safe disposal of their crap when they could just dispose of it cheaply and ineffectively.

I agree, waste is the issue. But its a hell of a lot less waste than you think. The storage can be done. We havn't even really tried. Not to mention the Pebble Bed Reactor creates less waste as its not even cooled with water. Its cooled by gasses dispersed between the 'pebbles' that do not irradiate even nearly as easily. PLUS the reactor is a lot more efficient and creates more energy from the fuel it uses.

We need to get over this fear of nuclear power.

[Opilione]

Melone, I wasn't comparing the machines to each other, I was comparing the statements. I'm just too skeptical about that kind of statement from living in a society with so much propaganda about nuclear power.

Also, the issue of waste isn't just the coolants, it's the used fuel itself, and with both issues it's not exactly the quantity, but the quality. The isotopes are valued for their radioactivity, but the useage time is short and then disposal means keeping them out of the way of humans for the next few million years whilst they're no longer useful but still dangerous to our kind. And in my own country, they just dump it in the desert at near-surface levels. That's never good when you have a country whose main water supply is an underground water table, even if the waste is classified as low-level.

The simple fact is there are better renewable sources which are also cheaper but are blocked by the nuclear power lobbyists. It would be cheaper for my country to set up large solar arrays in the same places they want to build the dumps to take over all the power issues of the country rather than replace the coal factories with nuclear reactors, and there would be no waste to worry about at all. But the companies have their hands firmly around the balls of the politicians in power, so it will never happen.

I believe nuclear power is a viable short-term solution. I do not, however, believe it should be employed long-term when there are already better technologies available for renewable energy sources. Simply because, logically, financially, and safety-wise, renewable is always better.

[Gory]

Nuclear power is a bad idea fiscally. Waste issues aside, it'll cost billions of dollars in subsidies. It's also a bad idea politically.

Solar and wind are better alternatives. Both fields are advancing to a point where they make better sense both financially and environmentally. High altitude (jet stream high) wind turbines are highly efficient and solar panel technology is getting cheaper, like Nanosolar's thin-film solar panels.

Basically, if we were to spend the billions we were going to spend on new nuclear plants on solar and wind technology we would have a far better alternative to nuclear.

Yes. Nuclear power is awesome because it provides tons of energy. Here's the biggest problem: It's not something we can (err, want) to share with the entire world. We can't build nuclear reactors and then tell (insert favorite hostile nation here) it can't, because we don't trust them with nuclear technology.

Wind and solar (among other renewable resources) are the friendly, non-political routes to saving the environment.

[Chingwa]

But its not actually possible for it to melt down in the same way a 17th century ship of the line could not possibly have an engine explode on it. Its just an entirely different beast.

turn off the power and we'll see how impossible a melt down is.

[Black Spot]

I’m biased as my Dad worked on Bradwell Power Station when my brother and I were born. He was only a junior engineer then, but was involved in the installation of the safety shut down mechanism, which worked for forty years.

[DanielC]

dunno if this has been posted



...speachless

[Mr.Delicious]

dunno if this has been posted



...speachless

total staff failure haha

[biglu]

That was funny hearing the staff at the end do damage control and pull her off the phone.

Also you'd think that the governor, being up there next to Canada and all, would know the Canadian PM's name. I mean, wouldn't she have to interact with the guy in some way when dealing with the Alaskan pipeline and similar issues ?

[Vorace]

haha they are called the ''justiciers masqués''. they are from Montreal yeeah

[James Kei]

[James Kei]

This about sums it up.

[Grief]

can this shit end already?

[SoufMeng]

can this shit end already?
VID

Which shit? The silly behaviour or the silly(ier?) behaviour that consists in broadcasting the former?

[Grief]

Which shit? The silly behaviour or the silly(ier?) behaviour that consists in broadcasting the former?

all of the above.

[Sidharth Chaturvedi]

I live in San Bruno, town just a short drive outside of San Francisco. There are crowds on the roads outside with Yes on 8 signs screaming "Go home, faggots!" while cars drive by and honk approvingly.

Its very, very sad.

Not too many No on 8 people, but I'm assuming (and hoping) that there are more of them in the city itself.

[S.C. Watson]

I live in San Bruno, town just a short drive outside of San Francisco. There are crowds on the roads outside with Yes on 8 signs screaming "Go home, faggots!" while cars drive by and honk approvingly.

Its very, very sad.

Not too many No on 8 people, but I'm assuming (and hoping) that there are more of them in the city itself.

I'm sorry to hear that. It's just disappointing to me to see and hear about so many people who are proudly bigoted.

You would think that we would have moved past that by now ...

~Oreg.

[James Kei]

[s.ketch]

Late to the discussion.

The reason why Nuclear power is so appealing is that it takes a very small amount of a fuel (of which nothing has to be done but refining) to produce a lot of electricity. However there are inherent problems with using radioactive metals that will never change, or at least not for a very long time.

Its a long process to get Uranium from it's ore form to a suitable purity for use. It takes time and is expensive. In it's natural ore, it can have very little to a lot of radiation which is obviously dangerous. Once processed and put into use radiation is a constant problem. Everything around those power rods will eventually become radioactive, the water, the tanks, the concrete towers.

Then there is the problem with waste as it takes centuries for radiation to dissipate. If our national energy use increases every year, that's more of a demand for power, more Uranium, more waste. Its not like garbage where we can just dump it and bury it. We don't have the technology to stop radioactive processes or contain them properly. Not to mention that Uranium is a nonrenewable resource.

In the long run it is better to take the time to set up region-specific energy solutions, like wind in windy place, hydro electric where there is constant water flow, etc. Nuclear power can be used as a band aid but the wound will get infected if we don't stitch it up.

[Black Spot]

Due to the ban on chucking the stuff into space, it will get worse. I can’t see the reason behind not throwing it at the sun to devour. Fusion is still the Holy Grail for scientists, which shouldl render the waste harmless. Sod the banks, chuck the money at science.

[TASmith]

I remember back in High School some small component of some space shuttle/capsule thingy becoming dislodged during a space launch, and falling back to earth. I believe it was one of the Mars missions? The canister contained about what, 5 ounces of radioactive material? I forget if it was ounces or pounds, but what I do recall is the news caster explaining that this was enough, if evenly distributed to cause cancer in EVERY LIVING THING ON EARTH.

Does that answer your question? This waste takes millenia to break down, not just centuries. And, I just saw the latest figures from the US Dept of Commerce. America earns about 200 billion in exports from nuclear reactor machinery... but we spend 250 billion on imports for nuclear machinery and fuel, so our use of it is contributing to our trade deficit...