Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Moosketeer - although I usually agree with you in this matter you are completely wrong. Nuclear power is not only safe and efficient, it is the only source that can be arranged to create more fuel than it uses. This can result in a perpetual energy system capable of powering not only our civilization, but also the rest of the world. For instance the fly ash pits of just about every coal-fired power plants contain more energy in the form of uranium than created by burning the coal.
Yes, Nuclear Power is complex and requires complete adherence to the “rules” in order to remain safe. Operators not following the rules caused the incidents at Three Mile Island (where nobody was injured) and Chernobyl. These can and must be avoided.
Safety is the main reason I propose a government owned energy system that would prevent management from taking shortcuts to increase short-term profits (capital accumulation) at the cost of long-term safety. We do know how to use this resource properly and it is way past time to reinstitute a nuclear powered future.
I believe the principal reason we stopped developing nuclear power was effective lobbying and propaganda by the fossil energy industries faced with market prices for oil and coal that were too low to deliver a profit (remember $2 per bbl oil?). The companies acted in concert to protect their stockholders at the expense of the rest of the society and economy.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
Nuclear power is not only safe and efficient, it is the only source that can be arranged to create more fuel than it uses. This can result in a perpetual energy system capable of powering not only our civilization, but also the rest of the world. For instance the fly ash pits of just about every coal-fired power plants contain more energy in the form of uranium than created by burning the coal.
I know it's a complex issue but can you offer a brief description of how this works? Why so much waste to worry about if we're producing more useable fuel than was input?
Originally Posted by GreatdayYep, they all cost energy and I bet you don't care how you get it as long as it is cheap. Everything has a prize and some costs can’t be paid off with money tho.
I have to respectfully disagree. We cannot truly control it, radio-active waste is IMO ahuge accident waiting to happen.
Nuclear power on paper looks perfect. But once you start looking at the risks, the costs and the disposal of it it's just far too much of a gamble for me.
I do not like anything which is impossible to control, transport, dispose of safely. And the proliferation of nuclear power as is happening now makes it even more unsafe.
We only need one major accident , or one war act to end up with a "bill" we are not prepared to deal with at all.
I do not like anything which is impossible to control, transport, dispose of safely. And the proliferation of nuclear power as is happening now makes it even more unsafe.
We only need one major accident , or one war act to end up with a "bill" we are not prepared to deal with at all.
One could make the same type argument for almost any kind of power. For instance, in my area of the country, we see many hydro electric generating plants - Dams. Hoover Dam for one. One could make the argument that if Hoover Dam broke, or was otherwise damaged, it would unleash a torrent of water that would kill 100's of 1000's downstream because of the flooding.
You don't understand the concept of luxury?
As far as I'm concerned luxury is everything you don't need to survive.
Food is not a luxury, since you need it to survive, but only eating what you want (because tit is what you like most) is unnecessary luxury.
Quote:
And, what exactly is an "environment friendly" car to you?
Why do you want me to do all the thinking for you?
Anywayz some cars are more environment friendly than others and the most environment friendly is obvious the best car to drive.
Originally Posted by Greatday
You don't understand the concept of luxury?
As far as I'm concerned luxury is everything you don't need to survive.
Food is not a luxury, since you need it to survive, but only eating what you want is unnecessary luxury.
So, I don't need a computer to survive. Should we do away with computers? Or, how about radios? Or Televisions. Or movie theatres. Or .... Luxuries -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D
Why do you want me to do all the thinking for you?
I don't - I asked for your opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D
Anywayz some cars are more environment friendly than others and the most environment friendly is obvious the best car to drive.
You suggest that there should be a limit on the size of car one can have? How about the quanities of cars? For instance, Jay Leno, a celebrity in the United States, owns over 30 cars (he is a car collector). He drives them all. Should this be prohibitied?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Everything has a prize and some costs can’t be paid off with money tho.
Unnecessary luxury.
Why do you want me to do all the thinking for you?
