I've changed my mind about nuclear power. 0_o

100's of people die every year in natural gas explosions...how many in nuclear power plants? How about compared to coal mining? Oil rigs? My point is that nuclear power is more safe then not safe. It took a 9.0 quake and a tsunami to do damage...those are how rare?
 
Superfreak said:
didn't you say the same thing in a knee jerk response to deep sea drilling after the Horizon disaster last year?
Click to expand...

Yep, but I'd be surprised if I changed my mind on this one. We're in over our heads w/ nukes. I lost count of the # of times I have read "officials don't really know" when it comes to this story.

And I was on the fence with nukes previously, anyway; I always saw them as a necessary evil, but have always had problems w/ the long-term nature of the waste that's created - well beyond a timeframe that most people can even comprehend.

With nukes, humans are like a kid playing with matches. It's technology we're not ready to handle yet, and there are too many potential pitfalls....
 
What if a magnitude 9 earthquake rocked the Hoover Dam? Could it possibly crumble? How many thousands of people would die? Would we have the pinheads here "re-thinking" their position on building dams? Catastrophes happen... deal with it! It doesn't matter what form of energy, there is a potential for disaster. Hundreds, if not thousands, die every year from mining and drilling accidents, a far greater per capita rate than nuclear energy ever has been or ever will be.

Remember this, Japan is a country located on an island, which sits on the fault line of THREE tectonic plates... not a situation we find anywhere in the United States. The risk of something like this happening in the US is non-existent. We're so precautionary about this, we wouldn't even build one close to any fault line, much less on top of two fault lines on an island... just not going to ever happen here. So while we can point to Japan and say what a terrible tragedy that is, we can't ignorantly claim this as a reason for why we shouldn't build nuclear plants in the US.
 
Dixie said:
What if a magnitude 9 earthquake rocked the Hoover Dam? Could it possibly crumble? How many thousands of people would die? Would we have the pinheads here "re-thinking" their position on building dams? Catastrophes happen... deal with it! It doesn't matter what form of energy, there is a potential for disaster. Hundreds, if not thousands, die every year from mining and drilling accidents, a far greater per capita rate than nuclear energy ever has been or ever will be.

Remember this, Japan is a country located on an island, which sits on the fault line of THREE tectonic plates... not a situation we find anywhere in the United States. The risk of something like this happening in the US is non-existent. We're so precautionary about this, we wouldn't even build one close to any fault line, much less on top of two fault lines on an island... just not going to ever happen here. So while we can point to Japan and say what a terrible tragedy that is, we can't ignorantly claim this as a reason for why we shouldn't build nuclear plants in the US.
Click to expand...

The Japanese nukes survived the earthquake intact. It was the flooding of the tsunami that caused all the problems.
 
King of Proles said:
Probably around $2billion. To build a solar plant that produces the same amount of power would require about 5x as much and about 20x the land.
Click to expand...

Last quote I heard was 18 Billion. Obama gave the go ahead, right after taking office. I don't see any rush to file applications. 2 billion wouldn't even cover the graft and corruption needed to build one plant.
 
Damn Yankee said:
The Japanese nukes survived the earthquake intact. It was the flooding of the tsunami that caused all the problems.
Click to expand...

Then they didn't survive did they, or radioactive water wouldn't be flooding through a crack. Say Mr. Engineer, how do you think that crack occured?
 
Dixie said:
Try about 200x or 2000x the land, and instead of it producing energy 24/7 like a nuke plant, it only produces energy when the sun is shining.
Click to expand...

Research then type. Modern solar plants employ storage (molten salt) and generate around the clock. Of course the biggest demand is always during the day anyway.
 
Holden Caulfield said:
Then they didn't survive did they, or radioactive water wouldn't be flooding through a crack. Say Mr. Engineer, how do you think that crack occured?
Click to expand...

Probably from the core overheating because it couldn't be cooled because the tsunami knocked out the cooling system. If the earthquake had caused the crack, there would have been high levels of radiation at the facility from the very start, and there wasn't.
 
Holden Caulfield said:
Research then type. Modern solar plants employ storage (molten salt) and generate around the clock. Of course the biggest demand is always during the day anyway.
Click to expand...

Just about all energy can be stored temporarily, solar panels can only generate energy when the sun is shining, that is the source of energy. There are also other pitfalls, solar panels have to be replaced every 25 years or so, and they are very expensive. In the long run, nuclear power could be generated at a fraction of the cost of solar, wind, or any other source.
 
Dixie said:
Just about all energy can be stored temporarily, solar panels can only generate energy when the sun is shining, that is the source of energy. There are also other pitfalls, solar panels have to be replaced every 25 years or so, and they are very expensive. In the long run, nuclear power could be generated at a fraction of the cost of solar, wind, or any other source.
Click to expand...

Like I said do some research then type. Solar Photovoltiac is for the homeowner or local shopping mall ot town building. Sloar power plants are Solar Thermal, and store heat in molten salt to generate power at night . I provided you with a link to this very type of plant in a previous thread.

As for photo-voltiac solar panels having a lifespan of 25 years, wrong again.
 
Holden Caulfield said:
..... 2 billion wouldn't even cover the graft and corruption needed to build one plant.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm...... So "Graft and Corruption" is only ever realized when we build nuclear power plants, and doesn't happen if we build other environmentally-friendly energy systems? Is that what you're trying to say here? Well, but of course it makes perfect sense, those mean greedy people who care about a buck more than the good ole mother earth, they have to be corrupt and unethical, while those who want to hug trees are obviously not that way at all! They would never do anything unethical or corrupt, in fact, I bet you could get apple to argue, if we let the tree huggers build solar and wind plants, they would even give us power at cost, because they are just such generous and benevolent people, who only want to help the environment and their fellow man.... it all makes perfect sense now!

//sarcasm
 
Dixie said:
Probably from the core overheating because it couldn't be cooled because the tsunami knocked out the cooling system. If the earthquake had caused the crack, there would have been high levels of radiation at the facility from the very start, and there wasn't.
Click to expand...

Don't be so concrete; the earthquake caused the tsunami, the tsunami cracked the containment vessal= the earthquake wrecked the plant.
 
Holden Caulfield said:
Last quote I heard was 18 Billion. Obama gave the go ahead, right after taking office. I don't see any rush to file applications. 2 billion wouldn't even cover the graft and corruption needed to build one plant.
Click to expand...
Then it's a significantly bigger and/or more advanced plant than either of the two in my back yard. Regardless they're still the cheapest in terms of land and energy produced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top