Long, could it be that you're my old chemistry teacher? I got exactely the same arguments out of him.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Look at the oil shipping industry. You want to see disasters? Do a comparison of damage and amounts of accidents.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Great. Compare a single burning ship to a massive nuclear leak. I dunno about you, but I'd rather trade the almost certain probability of the one against the risk of the other. Also, remember that I (like most ant - nuclears) am a tree hugging nut. We're not in favor of oil, either.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Additionally, at the moment we need only store nuclear waste for another 25 to 50 years. At that point either we will have found a convinient way to dispose of the waste IE space or will have developed an even cleaner material.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We can not be sure of the first, and the second attitude actually makes another revolution on the energy sector more impropable. Up till now, there is no practical way to dispose nuclear waste (And that crystal or neutron bombing won't become viable to people, who rather not warn others from toxic water because that could cost more than the fines, for a very long time.). Assuming that this'll change is like assuming that 'all people will move by jetpacks in 2000.' and then start building a net of service stations on the country. As long as there is no innovation (and disposing the stuff in space is none as long as a fair perecentage of the rockets we send up come down too soon), you can't rely on it.
The second argument, that we'll have something much better within 50 years, contradicts with your next argument, that: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nuclear power may not be cleaner than solar, geothermal, or wind power it is much more viable than they are at the momment.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There <i>are</i> already clean alternatives, but as long as we keep seeing nuclear power as the be-all and end-all, they won't be developed to the extent necessary to become a viable alternative.
And now don't start with fusion again - yes, it <i>is</i> a dream of effeciency, safety, and pollutionlessness, but it's been on the "verge to realization" for about 25 years now. Let's keep on researching in that area, but better don't rely on an innovation that's not there yet.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Oct. 21 2002,01:34--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Oct. 21 2002,01:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->There <i>are</i> already clean alternatives...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That statement sums it all up. There are other arguments for pollution and such, but we are releasing more heat every day, that has been built up from 200 million years ago, whether it be plant material that formed the oil we burn every day, or that odd isotope formed deep within the Earth's crust. Add that to the greenhouse gases we are releasing into the atmosphere through our cars and generators every day, and this Earth is heating up fast. That has been measured. No one is saying it's a lot, like hundreds of degrees, or dozens of degrees, or even several degrees. Closer to 2 or 3 degrees Celcius. Some areas will be hotter, some will be colder. But weather patterns will become much more extreme, and the world's average global temperature will rise by about 3 degrees.
Not much. But it is believed, from measuring drillings from ice sheets, that the world average temperature from our last ice age differed from today's by about 3 degrees Celcius. Carl Sagan has more information (and he lists his sources) in his book Billions & Billions (Chapter One: "I never said it." No, really!<!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo-->
I read somewhere that the profit difference for building and maintaining a plant for five years varies between 20% profit for a coal-burning plant and 5% for a solar-powered farm. We need the government to step in, and take just 5% of the money used in wars, and for the military used to keep foreign oil flowing, and offer that as an incentive for companies to set up solar farms. And then we might become energy-efficient enough to use that money on more important things, like school, or industry.
And maaaaaaaaaaaan, did I ever type a lot of nothing. Deal with it. And Longtooth, the reactor you were thinking of, that went critical, was Chernobyl's power plant, in Russia.
Actually H'bnayr I avoided specifics. They are isolated incidents and that would be like me constantly mentioning the Valdez spill as an argument. I left it general intentionally. And massive nuclear leak? really? Nuclear material does not travel as far nor is it transported on the water, the contamination area is far less. And until you show me a cost effective alternative I will have to go for the next best thing. Tree huggers have no concept of money. You said so yourself Nemesis that technology and advancement moves slow, and in doing so defeated your own argument for mass solar power and the like. You bring up the qoute about jetpacks in 2000, which is about as probable at the time as all solar power in 2050 is now. It will not happen, we are capitalist and companies will go for whichever power form is the most profitable. Additionally, I would like to be as least dependentent on the Middle East as possible. The day when solar power is viable I will embrace it, until nuclear power is the only viable solution. Some people like to pretend the world is full of chariotable people who don't care about money and want to save the trees, its not the truth, most people in the world only care about money, especially the people in the big bussinesses, IE the power industry. Thats my rant. Sorry if it is confusing.
<!--me&Freemantle--><span id='ME'><center>Freemantle shakes his head.</center></span><!--e-me-->
I have a few problems with anti-nuclear people. Your as bad as the media who state counter-strike makes sniper killers. Modern power plantes need a trained professional to cause a melt-down. Uncontrolled reactions are easily noticed and almost impossible today due to new emergency SCRAM (Super Condusive Radioactive Axe Man) procedures. When a nuclear plant is what supports your community and you've been in the guts of it, you tend to know what you talking about.
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Look at the oil shipping industry. You want to see disasters? Do a comparison of damage and amounts of accidents.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Great. Compare a single burning ship to a massive nuclear leak. I dunno about you, but I'd rather trade the almost certain probability of the one against the risk of the other.
Also, remember that I (like most ant - nuclears) am a tree hugging nut. We're not in favor of oil, either.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Additionally, at the moment we need only store nuclear waste for another 25 to 50 years. At that point either we will have found a convinient way to dispose of the waste IE space or will have developed an even cleaner material.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We can not be sure of the first, and the second attitude actually makes another revolution on the energy sector more impropable.
Up till now, there is no practical way to dispose nuclear waste (And that crystal or neutron bombing won't become viable to people, who rather not warn others from toxic water because that could cost more than the fines, for a very long time.). Assuming that this'll change is like assuming that 'all people will move by jetpacks in 2000.' and then start building a net of service stations on the country.
As long as there is no innovation (and disposing the stuff in space is none as long as a fair perecentage of the rockets we send up come down too soon), you can't rely on it.
The second argument, that we'll have something much better within 50 years, contradicts with your next argument, that: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nuclear power may not be cleaner than solar, geothermal, or wind power it is much more viable than they are at the momment.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There <i>are</i> already clean alternatives, but as long as we keep seeing nuclear power as the be-all and end-all, they won't be developed to the extent necessary to become a viable alternative.
And now don't start with fusion again - yes, it <i>is</i> a dream of effeciency, safety, and pollutionlessness, but it's been on the "verge to realization" for about 25 years now.
Let's keep on researching in that area, but better don't rely on an innovation that's not there yet.
<!--EDIT|Nemesis Zero|Oct. 21 2002,01:35-->
That statement sums it all up. There are other arguments for pollution and such, but we are releasing more heat every day, that has been built up from 200 million years ago, whether it be plant material that formed the oil we burn every day, or that odd isotope formed deep within the Earth's crust. Add that to the greenhouse gases we are releasing into the atmosphere through our cars and generators every day, and this Earth is heating up fast. That has been measured. No one is saying it's a lot, like hundreds of degrees, or dozens of degrees, or even several degrees. Closer to 2 or 3 degrees Celcius. Some areas will be hotter, some will be colder. But weather patterns will become much more extreme, and the world's average global temperature will rise by about 3 degrees.
Not much. But it is believed, from measuring drillings from ice sheets, that the world average temperature from our last ice age differed from today's by about 3 degrees Celcius. Carl Sagan has more information (and he lists his sources) in his book Billions & Billions (Chapter One: "I never said it." No, really!<!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo-->
I read somewhere that the profit difference for building and maintaining a plant for five years varies between 20% profit for a coal-burning plant and 5% for a solar-powered farm. We need the government to step in, and take just 5% of the money used in wars, and for the military used to keep foreign oil flowing, and offer that as an incentive for companies to set up solar farms. And then we might become energy-efficient enough to use that money on more important things, like school, or industry.
And maaaaaaaaaaaan, did I ever type a lot of nothing. Deal with it. And Longtooth, the reactor you were thinking of, that went critical, was Chernobyl's power plant, in Russia.
-Ryan!
The future will be better tomorrow.
-- Dan Quayle
I have a few problems with anti-nuclear people. Your as bad as the media who state counter-strike makes sniper killers. Modern power plantes need a trained professional to cause a melt-down. Uncontrolled reactions are easily noticed and almost impossible today due to new emergency SCRAM (Super Condusive Radioactive Axe Man) procedures. When a nuclear plant is what supports your community and you've been in the guts of it, you tend to know what you talking about.