McCain & Palin and Nuclear Agenda.

Nuclear energy has horrendous problems with storage and disposal of waste. And with mounting costs of Uranium, its not gonna be cheap. Uranium reserves in the world are not infinite. Thats the main reason why Indian government had to go to the NSG to get its fuel, and make a ton of compromises.

Its gonna be expensive, ever more expensive to go nuclear. There is not enough Uranium for everyone. Even today, Indian Nuclear Power Plants across the country are running at 70% capacity.

Source: http://paguntaka.org/2008/05/08/indias-nuclear-plants-plan-expand-new-uranium-mines-sources/

Unbelievable... isn't it. Let everyone build nuclear power plants. They'll just sit idle without fuel.

Source: http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Fuel-shortage-hits-nuclear-power-projects/318353/

 

I don't remember saying anything about the 'availability' of uranium. I know it's scarce. All I'm saying is - there is significant health risks involved in other energy sources as well. We need not single out nuclear energy. However, I do agree that it's capable of causing much wider, large scale damage. The issue is to handle it safely.

 

I agree with you. Each technology comes with its own risks and problems, and nuclear energy could be useful.

 

not true look at that solar power plant they built in spain with the rotating mirrors that focus a beam of light to the collector it powers a whole town...

 

IN Spain solar power is almost viable. They have a relatively sparse population spread thinly, Most towns have land around it that could be used to keep the massive square footage of panels/mirrors required and they have blistering sunshine almost all year round. In america and other European countries solar power is nothing more than an empty gesture. Nuclear is the only viable clean source of electricity.

 

Thank you for this intelligent reply.

I also liked this one.

Both are very good points.

Now at least we are having a conversation, instead of people pointing their finger at me saying "You dont know jacksh*t."

The whole point of this thread was to hear others point of view and it looks like we are finally getting some good ones.

 

Why not solar, wind and nuclear? You already stated that you were not informed about recent nuclear technology. Instead of voting against something you don't understand, become informed about it? Then, if you form an opinion that nuclear energy is "bad" - then vote against it. You might be missing the boat on nuclear!

 

Here is my theory:

Humans are overconfident & Humans are flawed.

I know the basis for the technology. Anytime you enrich Uranium you have to keep it cool, or it will boil over like a pot full of tea, and then some.

I am sure the newer technology is better than it was five or ten years ago. Nuclear still works the same...The technology to maintain it, to control it, to make it safer is what has been promoted recently.

The word "safer" is kind of a "what if" word, meaning something could still go wrong.

You can say, well if there is a 99% chance nothing will go wrong and supply energy to millions of homes and business, humans are willing to take that risk.

If we are unlucky and just happen to get caught with that ugly 1% risk factor, well then we would probably be dead. Hey but at least we lit up the dining room for awhile and the air conditioning was great too.

A good example was the Titanic. Unsinkable they said. "Could not be sunk by God himself."

It only takes a human error.

I think geothermal energy might be a better path to go down.

The Ocean has a lot of potential.

Nuclear is going to happen whether I am against it or not. It has some great advantages. I believe (for the most part) that we can manage it. We already have and are doing that already. Its the unforeseen events that mankind seems to forget about.

 

There are risks associated with everything, What we have to do is analyse those risks, determine if measures can be put in place to reduce associated risks, Determine if the remaining risks are worth taking, Put on some protective goggles and get on with trying to improve things.

What exactly are the associated risks anyway? meltdown? Being worried of a meltdown in modern power stations is a bit like refusing to fly on a 747 on the grounds that when Franz Reichelt jumped off the Eiffel tower the only thing he left behind was a crater.

 

I promised myself to stay out of this thread, but what the heck.

The problem with opinions in general is that they are like a**holes. Everybody has one. What my friend here tried to achieve was to gather the half truths that suited him to enforce his own preconceptions. This is not nuclear science, it's just basic psychology. Facts have the nagging habit of staying the same, no matter what you think about them and any "debate" we might hold won't change that.

My IQ dropped about 10 points after reading this. Nuclear fission doesn't quite work the way you think it does. In order to achieve it you need a significant pressure and of course the critical mass of fission material. The higher the pressure, the lower the critical mass required.

Now every major reactor design in existence today (with the exception maybe of RMBK and VVER - Soviet era designs) is thought in such a fashion that any significant change in the geometry of the reactor (aka "Oh my God it's gonna blow") automatically leads to loss of pressure and the lowering of the controlling rods. And by automatic I do not mean it is done by faulty humans or expensive computer systems, I mean good old gravity and thermodynamic laws. This is how they are built.

But this is not all. There are backup plans to backup plans and they are built solid. You wouldn't believe the level of redundancy and resistance that such a system has. Someone at one point calculated that crashing a 20 ton airplane into a nuclear reactor would leave the inner chamber intact. There is indeed a chance that one of them will go boom, but there is higher chance that you will get hot by a meteor... twice.

As for the scarcity issue, gauharjk really has a point. India has indeed problems in securing the nuclear fuel it needs. The world as a whole doesn't. You see India and 3 other nations (Israel, North Korea and Pakistan) are the only countries in the world that have refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and thus do not have access to the international Uranium market. Do a bit of googling on India+""Smiling Buddha" and see what comes up.

And then of course, we must talk about the clean alternatives. Well, the sad part is that there aren't any. There are indeed places where it is feasible to build a dam, a solar plant or a wind turbine, but these can only have a marginal effect on the overall problem, as they are usually either not powerful enough or prohibitively expensive. Plus they would have a significant environmental impact as well if they were to be used on a large scale. And yes this does include geothermal and tidal energy plants as well.

I presented you the facts. You can draw your own conclusion.

 

This is a post I started 916 days ago. I want to now say I know I am smarter than a those few Yahoo's that are for nuclear power.

My exact point is being made right now in Japan - The center of all technology.

and I quote from my own previous stated opinion: "Its the unforeseen events that mankind seems to forget about."

If you do not think this could happen in the USA...think again.

Sorry...had to post and because it is fairly clear to see that I am right, and I wanted that acknowledged.

 

Good show....oregon

Managing the Garden is the will of the Creator, its destruction will be the final Judgment and Extinction of mankind.

 

It is not cheaper to build a nuclear plant than solar or air energy. But nuclear energy is a huge energy than solar energy or air energy.

 

The USA has vast amount of deserts to air and solar. How about mini hydrogen power stations that can be connected to each and every home and business in the USA? The way I see it...that is the future of energy.

The experts of nuclear energy say that the USA is better, that Terrorism or natural disasters are unlikely to do enough damage to our plants.

I am saying is ...do not be cocky and full of pride. Man's biggest downfall is his belief in himself to be superior and smarter than God.

What was it that the serpent tempted Adam and Eve with in the garden?

The serpent said eat the fruit and you will gain knowledge and to become like gods.

It is ironic that man thinks exactly that....that we are smarter and that we are in control.

I have news for you...control is just an illusion and knowledge can be rewritten.

 

Yes, but how distant a future? I'd bet we have Chernobyl cleaned up before that happens.

Besides, nuclear is natural, just like plastic. Made from the natural bounty god has supplied to us. If we weren't supposed to use it, god wouldn't have made it available to us.

 

Knowing what is made available and for whom is why we are here.

Obviously the nuclear facilities in Japan were a mistake just as the deep drilling in the Gulf of Mexico was likewise an error of judgment.

In both cases sounder reason was allowed to be over-ruled and mankind falls further from the prospects of Remission, the goal necessary for Atonement.

Each Spirit unfortunately seems entwined with all those that are likewise present and regrettably held accountable as a group than individually - is the folly for near certain extinction destined for mankind.

 

916 days later and the facts still haven't changed. Apparently neither did you.

Now I won't send you to Google again, it's clear that this doesn't work, so I'll recap instead what happened. In Japan occurred the largest earthquake ever recorded in human history. Despite this, the nuclear plant found near the epicenter didn't go ka-boom as in nuclear meltdown. There were indeed some deaths due to explosions, but no deaths caused by radiation exposure. Nonetheless, some idiot politicians who undoubtedly have a voting base with opinions not very different from yours, decided to go bat shit crazy and just ban the whole thing.

You'll tell me that radiation leaked anyway. Perhaps it would be best to look at the numbers first before continuing with your righteous spree:

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

Your beloved Yahoo,
George

 

Well, that aspect of the plan in Japan failed miserably.

There is an undetermined amount of radiation leakage presently - perhaps not a significant amount to date however it is only by chance and not design a complete catastrophe was averted.

 

@Breeze Wood

"geewgle"? Are you for real?

I love a good troll, just for entertainment purposes, but don't expect me to take you seriously.

 

Obviously, the catastrophic events in Japan for their distraction from reliable nuclear reactors and the sincerity of their proponents.