Anything but green power is fucking this planet

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by YWD67, Mar 13, 2011.

Watchers:
This thread is being watched by 6 users.
  1. YWD67

    YWD67 YOUR WATCH DOG 67 Established Member

    We have heard over and over how nuke power is much, more safer then it was 50,40,30,20, etc years ago. Energy lobbyist have paid the right side gov. for years shelling how nuke, fossil and such non-green power sorces are safe and better.
    Sorry righties by Japan has just knocked your anti-government regulations shit on your ass.

    One nuke plant has maybe all three reactors going critical. Most experts say this will be the worst nuke power disaster ever.
    The company that built the Japan plant has 23 identical plants here in the U.S.

    The U.S. energy lndustry has lauded the planet as the safest producer of nuke power in the world with out exception.
    A quarter of those U.S. plants are susceptible to the same kind of geological damage that the Fukushima Daiichi plant has suffered.

    Step up here AI and tell how the U.S. gov. is over regulationg U.S. business again.
    MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, AP ETC. and other trusted news outlets have numerous stories on this global disaster.

    FOX has one link to it, the rest of their fair and balanced news site is nothing but anti Obama, the left is the problem in the world, on its news site.

    Sorry righties!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  2. carpefile

    carpefile Chronic Established Member

    What does this have to do with regulations or "righties"? Are even natural disasters political fodder now?
  3. YWD67

    YWD67 YOUR WATCH DOG 67 Established Member

    Let me spell it out to you since you want to play "I am a dumb SOB".

    Ever since Three Mile Island, the anti-governemt regulation crowd such as yourself, have spued over and over how the U.S. has stifeled cheaper energy by over regulation of the energy industry. Or better yet the buisness world in general.

    If you wish to push the issue, I will be more then glad to post every source I can find for the last 60 yrs about the dangers of nuke power.
    Which is probably 30 years longer then you have been out of puberty.
  4. Signa

    Signa COCK ROCKET!!! Established Member

    What the fuck are you doing YWD, Don Webb hasn't posted in months. There is no need for this kind of counter-right posting!
  5. Atheist Icon

    Atheist Icon Member Established Member

    I would rather have a nuke plant in my back yard vs. coal. Solar or wind are not viable since there is no truly green storage medium for when the sun doesn't shine or when the wind doesn't blow.

    Trust me, I would rather use solutions that are renewable. Until we find one, Nuclear is the perfect stop gap.

    Nuclear regulation...really isn't much there in the sense of gov't stifling it. It would be the Militant Environmentalist that lock up any Nuclear project, expansion or new development, with endless litigation.

    Regardless of how "Green" something is, unless man is out of the equation, it will still poison the environment.
  6. YWD67

    YWD67 YOUR WATCH DOG 67 Established Member

    Do not change the subject AI!!!! You asked what my statement had to do the politics. I gave you the fact based truth and now you wish to do a "Texas Two Step" around it.

    Signa, god love you, but if you can neither add to or counter my statement then leave it.
  7. Atheist Icon

    Atheist Icon Member Established Member

    Wasn't me dude. This is my second response to your thread.
  8. YWD67

    YWD67 YOUR WATCH DOG 67 Established Member

    Sorry dude I have been hoppying from forum to forum on this one.

    With that said, you are still way off the mark on energy.
  9. carpefile

    carpefile Chronic Established Member

    Actually that was me who questioned what a natural disaster had to do with politics.
    And seriously, the reactor held up extremely well in the face of the fourth largest quake in recorded seismic history followed by a tsunami. The radiation leak has been contained, the cores are being cooled with seawater till repairs can be made.
    Nuclear energy is about the most regulated industry in the world.
    But I'm with you, sort of.
    Shut down all the damn uranium breeder reactors, they are expensive, wasteful, and no matter how regulated they are, the possibility of catastrophe, however slim, will always exist.
    Bring on the liquid fluoride thorium reactors. Cheap, safe, powerful, produce almost no waste, and even will burn up all the nuclear waste we currently store as fuel.
    Still though, you don't think its tacky to take a natural disaster and use it to froth at the mouth with rabid leftyism?
  10. Signa

    Signa COCK ROCKET!!! Established Member

    What Carpefile said. Everything I've heard about energy points to making Thorium reactors, or at least less burning of fossil fuels by making more reactors like what we have now. Until we make a giant solar panel in space, solar energy is going to be a waste of time and money. The only promising wind generation I've seen was this cool greenhouse thing with a giant tube in the middle. I doubt that will service us enough though.

    As for countering or adding to your statement, I have no idea what you're on about. The only politics I'm aware of regarding energy is the oil barons holding us under their thumb.
  11. mountain_rage

    mountain_rage Zeropaids nipple Staff Member Moderator

    Well there is a international push to build a fusion reactor prototype. So if the trial goes well, we could see that take over in the future. It was most of the major international players that were involved in building the prototype in France. If successful it will produce more energy, with little to no radiated waste.
  12. Signa

    Signa COCK ROCKET!!! Established Member

    As far as I know M_R, Fusion is just a dream or a goal. Thorium reactors burn the already irradiated waste we have with technology we already have. Seems pointless to wait for a goal we may or may not achieve if we have another option ready for the meantime.
    1 person likes this.
  13. mountain_rage

    mountain_rage Zeropaids nipple Staff Member Moderator

    My comment was in no way a beef against Thorium, just an observation of observable future possibility. Personally I think we need a balance of wind, solar, geothermal, natural gas, hydro, and nuclear power. Then we need to balance our energy production with the creation of more energy efficient buildings and machines.
  14. Signa

    Signa COCK ROCKET!!! Established Member

    Happy quad-6 post MR.

    yeah, as with all things, balance. No one seems to think in those terms these days.
  15. Atheist Icon

    Atheist Icon Member Established Member

    Wind and Solar need vast amounts of land to produce the same amount of energy as one Nuclear plant.

    Solar efficiency is about the same as an ICE, 35% tops. Since the sun does not since 24hrs a day on the same spot, you do need a storage medium for it to work.

    Wind is only good for 25% or so of the time and you will need a storage medium for that as well for when the wind does not blow.

    As for Nuclear, you can run a plant for about a year, IIRC, 24/7, before it needs to be shut down for a month or two for maintenance and refueling, then it goes back to making power 24/7 again.

    With that said, there have been tremendous leaps for solar and wind in the last couple decades. Solar panels have become cheaper and more efficient. Windmills have been killing fewer birds with every new motor design.

    Oh and as for the design on the plant in Japan, that has not only taken the 8.9 or 9.1 earthquake and a (reported) 13-33 ft Tsunami, I would have to say that it could be worse. And it probably will.

    Pssst do not tell Obama, but the designer of that plant and the 23 other here stateside was...GE. http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/13/6256121-general-electric-designed-reactors-in-fukushima-have-23-sisters-in-us
  16. carpefile

    carpefile Chronic Established Member

    Nice GE link AI. Shows where the 6 plants are that might be susceptible to the same type of earthquake damage. 4 in Illinois, 1 in Minnesota, 1 in Massachusetts. Not exactly earthquake or tsunami heavy areas. I think they will be ok. :)
  17. sygreenblum

    sygreenblum Member

    Modern day designs are much safer. The plant that's melting is 40 years old based on a design that's more then 50 years old. They also put their back-up diesel generators to run their cooling systems and other major equipment in the basement, which obviously flooded during the Tsunami. A mix of an old design, bad choices and one of the worlds largest earthquakes followed by a massive Tsunami was a perfect Quadfecta of factors. While this will be a massive set-back in the nuclear industry, technology must move forward. Fusion is not here yet and may not be for a hundred years.
  18. DigitalJunkie

    DigitalJunkie Still learning.........!

    Sorry, you still can't buy me to live near a nuclear plant or waste !!!
  19. Atheist Icon

    Atheist Icon Member Established Member

    Meh...I would rather live near a 2 sq. mile 1,100MW Nuke plant that has been storing its waste on site for the last 20 yrs, than living near countless acres of windmills producing the same power. Much quieter too, from what I understand...and a lot less dead birds.
  20. mountain_rage

    mountain_rage Zeropaids nipple Staff Member Moderator

    You say dead bird, I say free dinner.

Share This Page