Nuclear power

LaVida said:

@ BlahIsuck
I guess, we both have our opinions on this matter which will not change no matter what haha But it's nice to discuss with you.

It doesn't matter if they're using advanced technology for new plants. They will never be completely save. And even if the risk is only 0,1%, for me, the risk is still too high bearing possible consequences in mind. About Chernobyl: The accident didn't happen because of outdated technology. The plant's operators were doing tests and turned off several safety mechanisms. The accident couldn't have happened if the plant had been operated normally. A communication error eventually led to the catastrophe.. The exact same could happen with both old and new plants.

As I said, I live in Europe and there aren't any permanent repositories. They keep looking for one but haven't had any success.Personally, I've never of one anywhere

Sorry Im on a stupid tablet, Ill continue my post later

Click to expand...

Did you know that you have a higher chance of being struck by lightning than almost any other possible way of getting hurt? It's true, based on statistical data. Coal mines have a much higher fatality rate than mining for radioactive materials, more people die each year from coal mines than most other industrial accidents.

Also yes, the level of technology does matter, that's what we learned from Chernobyl, that the technology must be maintained and updated all the time. The only reason Chernobyl had a meltdown was because of the technology not being up to date, and thus incompatible with any replacement parts for maintenance. So they let a few bolts and screws rust away, ignored the lights that were not on because they were in need of replacement ... what would you expect to happen? Even coal plants, hydro plants, any system at all will collapse and cause massive damage if they did that.

Let's isolate the myths about hydroelectric dams. It does cause harm, directly, to the environment. To make a dam you have to flood a large portion of land that ins inhabited by many other species, you strip them of their homes and often their lives just for your own convenience. That one was easy, damages the environment just as much as nuclear, just in a different manner and the damage is direct.

The next myth, hydroelectric does not produce as much energy per the amount of resources required for it. A small amount of radioactive material mined from the planet's own crust, what we're standing on, creates a lot of energy. Hydroelectric takes several hundred tons of water passing through (thus filtered of all life) to produce the same amount. Sure, it's clean, but the environment is not clean, and thus you are destroying the environment.

There must be geological formations existing for the dams to even work, Norway has the most sites that fit these requirements of any other area, and even they can only supplement 40% of their energy with it. The few dams that are possible in the US, for the purpose of producing energy, cannot cover 10% of our energy use. Why not build more dams? Because there are not suitable sites for more energy producing dams that will not cause massive sections of our land to become flooded, and thus unlivable by most of our native species, including ourselves.

Europe actually has a lot of nuclear plants. In the world there are thousands of nuclear plants, most have been operating for decades now, and yet there were only three major catastrophes from these plants, only one was never cleaned up. That's not a 0.1% chance of error, that's more like 0.0000000001% chance of catastrophic error.

Sure, it'd be nice if the world was a giant bouncy house and we were all safe, all the time, from everything. But that's not the case. You have a higher chance of being in a car accident on a nature trail in the middle of nowhere, while walking, than a nuclear facility anywhere near you melting down. You are expose to more radiation from your microwave and any CRT displays than you will be from nuclear waste, ever. We produce more tons of toxic waste producing, shipping, and storing food than all the nuclear plants in the world, that's one day's worth of waste from food compared to a decade of nuclear waste. Your tablet produces more radiation than the amount of nuclear waste produced by just using it.

KittenKoder said:

Also yes, the level of technology does matter, that's what we learned from Chernobyl, that the technology must be maintained and updated all the time. The only reason Chernobyl had a meltdown was because of the technology not being up to date, and thus incompatible with any replacement parts for maintenance. So they let a few bolts and screws rust away, ignored the lights that were not on because they were in need of replacement ... what would you expect to happen? Even coal plants, hydro plants, any system at all will collapse and cause massive damage if they did that.

Click to expand...

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. The Chernobyl disaster was caused by design flaws, both technological and human. It's difficult to argue which one was "more" important unless you understand the reports and can explain their conclusions here.

KittenKoder said:

Sure, it'd be nice if the world was a giant bouncy house and we were all safe, all the time, from everything. But that's not the case. You have a higher chance of being in a car accident on a nature trail in the middle of nowhere, while walking, than a nuclear facility anywhere near you melting down. You are expose to more radiation from your microwave and any CRT displays than you will be from nuclear waste, ever. We produce more tons of toxic waste producing, shipping, and storing food than all the nuclear plants in the world, that's one day's worth of waste from food compared to a decade of nuclear waste. Your tablet produces more radiation than the amount of nuclear waste produced by just using it.

Click to expand...

We shouldn't compare apples and oranges, but I do see your point. Your explanation of environmental damage due to the construction of dams is good - it's something that people often leave out because the energy itself is "clean". China made a big environmental sacrifice in the construction of the Three Gorges Dam, which is what I was alluding to several posts prior.

I'm sorry, but I can't be bothered to continue this discussion.

Comparing car accidents to a nuclear a meltdown... This is ridiculous. Of course, the chance of getting involved in a car accident is higher. But getting hit in a car accident doesn't have any health/enviornmental consequences in the area for the next 1000 years.

I live in a country that is strongly against nuclear power. And I'm very happy it's that way. I don't know any person who is in favor of nuclear power.

Using nuclear power is irresponsible. You can't build plants that are save from terrorist attacks. And they can never be 100% save as it's people who operate them. And people are not always exact. I know from some documentaries (which were about people who have worked at nuclear facilities) that saftey measures are a lot of the time not sticked to. Personally, I prefer to not put my life into somebody else's hands.

Yes, those plants might be made to be very save. But if people don't use them correctly, there are bound to be errors. Sometimes fatal ones.

To the person from Australia who said that they find it too bad that they don't have nuclear power plants there: I'd be happy to live on an island far, far away from any nuclear facility.

Anyway, I will restrain from posting on this thread as it's a waste of time to discuss this sort of matter with people like KittenKoder who compare nuclear meltdowns to car accidents and who apprently doesn't even know what propaganda means.

LaVida said:

I'm sorry, but I can't be bothered to continue this discussion.

Comparing car accidents to a nuclear a meltdown... This is ridiculous. Of course, the chance of getting involved in a car accident is higher. But getting hit in a car accident doesn't have any health/enviornmental consequences in the area for the next 1000 years.

I live in a country that is strongly against nuclear power. And I'm very happy it's that way. I don't know any person who is in favor of nuclear power.

Using nuclear power is irresponsible. You can't build plants that are save from terrorist attacks. And they can never be 100% save as it's people who operate them. And people are not always exact. I know from some documentaries (which were about people who have worked at nuclear facilities) that saftey measures are a lot of the time not sticked to. Personally, I prefer to not put my life into somebody else's hands.

Yes, those plants might be made to be very save. But if people don't use them correctly, there are bound to be errors. Sometimes fatal ones.

To the person from Australia who said that they find it too bad that they don't have nuclear power plants there: I'd be happy to live on an island far, far away from any nuclear facility.

Anyway, I will restrain from posting on this thread as it's a waste of time to discuss this sort of matter with people like KittenKoder who compare nuclear meltdowns to car accidents and who apprently doesn't even know what propaganda means.

Click to expand...

Do you know why the US government is broken? Because the vast percentage of voters are stupid. That holds true for everywhere. Just because the vast majority of people are too lazy to actually look up the facts doesn't make them right. A vast majority of people in the world still think their imaginary friend made the universe and governs life on Earth, as well, does the vast majority thinking this make that any more real?

Comparing it to automobile accidents? Actually, if we compared nuclear to automobiles in general, automobiles cause more pollution, more deaths, and more harm to everything around them than all the nuclear plants in the world. Do we need cars? No, we don't, we need them less than we need electricity. The comparison is valid.

Errors happen all the time, all the time, as in every second of every day someone is making a mistake somewhere. You are ignoring the simple point here, just because something is dangerous doesn't mean it's bad, it's called weighing the options. Living is, in itself, a very dangerous activity, because there is a 100% chance you are going to die.

KittenKoder said:

Living is, in itself, a very dangerous activity, because there is a 100% chance you are going to die.

Click to expand...

For now :P >.>

I agree with you, Kitten.


Power is dangerous. Because of this, great power means even greater responsibility.

As a U.S. citizen, I find the reason the majority of people in my nation are stupid is because they rely on educational institutions for their smarts. The vast majority of stuff taught in schools is bullcrap - like the Big Bang, for example, which has been disproven many times in many different ways for years. And yet people still believe it.

Our representatives are also stupid - this is actually the largest concern. The general populace being stupid is one thing - in a representative system, they don't have as much power as they could. This means that representatives, having the majority of power, need to be absolutely brilliant in order to get things done correctly. This isn't the case. As shown with Obama, there's honestly no hope left for the political world.

I support E-Democracy not only because it shanks the representative system and allows instantaneous direct democracy, but because it uses the internet - which is, for now, the only unlimited and unregulated mass-communication and mass-information device in the entire world. You get on the internet, you become truly smart. Period. While many people will stick to YouTube and FaceBook for a few years, they will eventually start creeping up on forums and wikis - learning more, properly.

I know I said I no longer wanted to participaite in this thread but I have to say something about:

I support E-Democracy not only because it shanks the representative system and allows instantaneous direct democracy, but because it uses the internet - which is, for now, the only unlimited and unregulated mass-communication and mass-information device in the entire world. You get on the internet, you become truly smart. Period. While many people will stick to YouTube and FaceBook for a few years, they will eventually start creeping up on forums and wikis - learning more, properly.

Click to expand...

Careful with relying too much on the internet. I'd rather rely on books for "learning more, properly". Wikipedia can be changed by anyone. Information on the internet could be changed so that the "truth" may actually be hidden. Books can't be changed that fast.
Forums? Aren't forums places where everyone can state their opinion? Does this make things automatically right?

Actually, it seems like that in the last few years, the people participating in forums have decreased a lot. Most people use Facebook nowadays and have become too convenient to lead a proper discussion in forums. (This is a Pokémon forum so I guess, this is an exception but for most other forums I've been a member of, this holds true.)

While I'm at it, I'll reply to KittenKoder's post so that I'm not going off-topic here.

@ KittenKoder


Regarding cars: Yes they pollute the environment. That's why I personally think that people should use cars and planes as rarely as possible. Use a bike or the train instead or simply walk if it's not too far away. The same applies for nuclear power plants: Use them as rarely as possible

Errors happen all the time, all the time, as in every second of every day someone is making a mistake somewhere.

Click to expand...

Yes, making mistakes is human. But because people tend to make mistakes, it is irresponsible to operate nuclear power plants. There, a mistake can have devastating results. I guess, I'm repeating myself.

Making mistakes is alright as long as it doesn't have a massive impact on other people's lives. And while the chance of a nuclear catastrophe like in Chernobyl and Fukushima is low, if it happens, it'll have a life-long impact on people's lives.

Just recently, the Japanese government has admitted that residents that used to live near the Fukushima nuclear facility will never be able to return.

EVERYDAY, at least 300 tons of radiation-contaminated water is leaking out into the sea. Do you realize what this means? I don't think you do because if you did, it'd make you think whether we'd really have to use nuclear power. And no, we don't have to use it.

You are ignoring the simple point here, just because something is dangerous doesn't mean it's bad, it's called weighing the options.

Click to expand...

It's dangerous and we don't have to use it. There are alternatives. So then, why use it at all? Do you get what I mean? Of course, if a country's energy production is 80% based on nuclear power, then it'll take some time to replace it with something else. (And no, I'm not talking about coal or the likes.) But the future goal should be to eventually replace nuclear power completely. It is dangerous and not necessary.

If something is bad, by the way, is a very subjective feeling. What isn't bad for you might be bad for others. But I'm sure that if radioactive material was to leak out of a nuclear reactor near you, then you'd also feel that nuclear power should no longer be used in the future.

It's really too bad people only realize these things when it's too late.

LaVida said:

It's dangerous and we don't have to use it. There are alternatives. So then, why use it at all?

Click to expand...

It's very noble to have such an ideal. I don't think any of us disagrees with that. To put it another way, limit of [energy mix] as t -> infinity is most probably renewables. However, we are bound by space and time. At this time, renewable energy doesn't give us that much capacity. It is also fairly expensive. While there's no reason that we shouldn't move towards renewable sources in the future, there is good reason that renewables cannot solve all our problems - for the reasons pointed out above - right now. We don't have to use it, but taking the world as we're given it, I'd say it's a darn good idea for the now.

People make high-risk, low probability decisions every day. There's a branch of statistics dedicated to it, extreme value theory, which informs us just how low/high the probabilities are. It's not an exact science, because things like the financial crisis of 2007 happen, but it's still a science and people are still developing better ways to model the probability of rare events to help judge if the risk is worth it or not.

LaVida said:

If something is bad, by the way, is a very subjective feeling. What isn't bad for you might be bad for others. But I'm sure that if radioactive material was to leak out of a nuclear reactor near you, then you'd also feel that nuclear power should no longer be used in the future.

Click to expand...

That argument has a very individualistic appeal. I think nuclear energy has always been a collective issue, simply because there's such a big impact that different stakeholders will feel in radically different ways. If everybody resorted to thinking about what was best for them, then these big projects that affect us all would never get done. It's all about give and take. Some of us bear more of a burden than others. It's not fair or equal, but people can live with that. If something bad happened to me, I'd feel emotional, but again, as long as the world isn't crashing down around me, I don't see why I should have anything against nuclear power in general. If I survive a car accident or a plane crash, would I give those things up just because it happened to me? No, I was in the wrong place at the wrong time (if my driving was perfect), and statistically it isn't very often that I'd end up in the wrong place at the wrong time.

LaVida said:

Careful with relying too much on the internet. I'd rather rely on books for "learning more, properly". Wikipedia can be changed by anyone. Information on the internet could be changed so that the "truth" may actually be hidden. Books can't be changed that fast.
Forums? Aren't forums places where everyone can state their opinion? Does this make things automatically right?

Click to expand...

I used to use books all the time, in school. Turns out, the books I read in Libraries contradicted what was said in textbooks, all books contradicted each other, and everyone tends to read everything in their own way, in their own context.

The Internet basically takes all those interpretations from every source in the world and smashes them together. If ever a book lies about something, you can find something on the internet that calls out the lie. THAT is why I trust the internet more than books shoved down my throat my ignorant bureaucrats and conservatist, close-minded parents and teachers - and only the texts those kinds of people approve of.


As Goethe remarked, ""We compare the Newtonian theory of colours to an old castle, which was at first constructed by its architect with youthful precipitation. All damages, whether inflicted by the hand of the enemy or the power of time, were quickly made good. As occasion required, they deepened the moats, raised the walls, and took care there should be no lack of towers, battlements, and embrasures. The old castle was chiefly held in honour because it had never been taken, because it had repulsed so many assaults, had baffled so many hostile operations, and had always preserved its virgin renown. The building itself is already abandoned; its only inmates are a few invalids, who in simple seriousness imagine that they are prepared for war.

We find this eighth wonder of the world already nodding to its fall as a deserted piece of antiquity, and begin at once, without further ceremony, to dismantle it from gable and roof downwards; that the sun may at last shine into the old nests of rats and owls, and exhibit to the eye of the wondering traveler that labyrinthine style of building with its scanty, makeshift contrivances, its intentional artifice and clumsy repairs. Such an inspection will, however, only be possible when wall after wall, arch after arch, is demolished, the rubbish being at once cleared away as well as it can be. To level the site and arrange materials thus required, so that they can be employed for a new building, is the arduous duty we have undertaken."




Newton's theory of colors is one of many things declared true and proper in books. Even a text from ten years ago can be outdated, riddled with the biased opinions of the author, and altogether obsolete. Only on the internet, where information is constantly updated, checked, rechecked, and revealed in its purest state, can truth be fully realized.

BlahISuck said:

At this time, renewable energy doesn't give us that much capacity.

Click to expand...

I do wonder if we could have enough energy from renewables if we organized other parts of or lives in different ways. I feel like we waste a lot of energy that we don't need to. Lots of people could hang their clothes to dry (not everyone, but a lot of people), but lots us dryers which require a lot of power. Lots of people live in their own freestanding homes and heat them separately when apartments could house the same number of people with lower heating costs. Basically, we have lots of choices about how we use energy and our society is structured, literally, in certain ways that force us to use energy certain ways as well. If those were changed, how much energy would we need?

Scarf said:

I do wonder if we could have enough energy from renewables if we organized other parts of or lives in different ways. I feel like we waste a lot of energy that we don't need to. Lots of people could hang their clothes to dry (not everyone, but a lot of people), but lots us dryers which require a lot of power. Lots of people live in their own freestanding homes and heat them separately when apartments could house the same number of people with lower heating costs. Basically, we have lots of choices about how we use energy and our society is structured, literally, in certain ways that force us to use energy certain ways as well. If those were changed, how much energy would we need?

Click to expand...

Global manufacturing production is increasing at a rate of around 2-3% a year, and newly industrializing economies are rapidly consuming more and more resources. I mean, there are a couple countries that are well on their way in decreasing their dependence on fossil fuels for energy and electricity, but those are small wealthy countries like Denmark. I don't think the question is whether or not renewables /can/ supply enough energy, because there's no timeframe for that question, but whether or not the share of renewable energy can grow fast enough at a competitive price. I'm sure the technology will improve one day, but as long as the largest solar/wind plants have a capacity of 1000MW it won't be getting us anywhere anytime soon. In the big picture, energy/electricity use in the world is increasing and it's going to take a lot of struggle to increase the amount of renewables we use.

Enter China. I think it's a good case for understanding why renewable energy is at where it's at. The state can pump a load of money into the industry, which does work - China has the most windpower capacity in the world - until it doesn't work - while China produces most of the world's solar cells (for export to the rest of the world), there have been some very embarrassing bankruptcies involving the collapse of huge state-owned companies. I think we have to reflect on the fact we operate in a market system: China's (and most other countries') renewable energy sector is only successful because it's propped up by massive government subsidies - otherwise it's wayy too expensive for private actors to pursue on their own, and as well countries want to protect their own industries and their own markets - such as when the EU threw tariffs at Chinese imports because they were afraid Chinese solar cells would undercut the ones sold by their own companies. Neither of these things are good: subsidies don't reflect what people actually want to buy - it's been reported that Chinese production of solar panels actually surpassed global demand in 2011, and countries will restrict the buying and selling of renewable energy equipment in order to protect their own industries.

Also, I'm not too sure how much choice we (or you) have to change American society. The American suburb and national highway system were set in place since the 50's, and so have been around for over 60 years, and both of these contribute to a high use of energy as you've pointed out. While we can refurbish old buildings and build new ones that require less energy to manage, I don't think our suburbs are going to go away any time soon. The national highway system leads to an overdependence on trucking instead of trains for logistics, and promotes the use of automobiles in general, which again would use more fossil fuels. These "problems" are structural to how American society is organized and I think they're for the most part here to stay.

To put what "we" can do into perspective, residential energy use in the US is around a fifth. Industrial and transportation usage are around a third each, and commercial is around a fifth too. So "we", as citizens in our own private lives, can only really contribute to around 20% of the energy conservation effort. A lot of energy use reduction will rely on what the people in office have to say about regulating industry and energy policy. It's not the most encouraging thing to hear, but hey, if you write to your representatives or protest or something, maybe something will get done?

Rezilia said:

For now :P >.>

I agree with you, Kitten.


Power is dangerous. Because of this, great power means even greater responsibility.

As a U.S. citizen, I find the reason the majority of people in my nation are stupid is because they rely on educational institutions for their smarts. The vast majority of stuff taught in schools is bullcrap - like the Big Bang, for example, which has been disproven many times in many different ways for years. And yet people still believe it.

Our representatives are also stupid - this is actually the largest concern. The general populace being stupid is one thing - in a representative system, they don't have as much power as they could. This means that representatives, having the majority of power, need to be absolutely brilliant in order to get things done correctly. This isn't the case. As shown with Obama, there's honestly no hope left for the political world.

I support E-Democracy not only because it shanks the representative system and allows instantaneous direct democracy, but because it uses the internet - which is, for now, the only unlimited and unregulated mass-communication and mass-information device in the entire world. You get on the internet, you become truly smart. Period. While many people will stick to YouTube and FaceBook for a few years, they will eventually start creeping up on forums and wikis - learning more, properly.

Click to expand...

With you up until you claim a scientific hypothesis has been "disproven." Science neither proves, nor disproves, anything. Science is used to test supporting evidence to a claim, finding data that is tainted by various flaws in the human condition then removing those. If there is supporting evidence for it, it still stands as an acceptable claim. Going a bit off track here, but what you refer to as "the Big Bang," meaning rapid expansion of the universe, is not a claim now, it is now supporting evidence to the origin hypothesis that states this universe started off as a singularity.

Then you go into political stuff, which I will simply address in this manner: According to whom?

This is a discussion of nuclear power, something that requires science, not religious nonsense, to manage and utilize correctly.

LaVida said:

Regarding cars: Yes they pollute the environment. That's why I personally think that people should use cars and planes as rarely as possible. Use a bike or the train instead or simply walk if it's not too far away. The same applies for nuclear power plants: Use them as rarely as possible

Yes, making mistakes is human. But because people tend to make mistakes, it is irresponsible to operate nuclear power plants. There, a mistake can have devastating results. I guess, I'm repeating myself.

Making mistakes is alright as long as it doesn't have a massive impact on other people's lives. And while the chance of a nuclear catastrophe like in Chernobyl and Fukushima is low, if it happens, it'll have a life-long impact on people's lives.

Just recently, the Japanese government has admitted that residents that used to live near the Fukushima nuclear facility will never be able to return.

EVERYDAY, at least 300 tons of radiation-contaminated water is leaking out into the sea. Do you realize what this means? I don't think you do because if you did, it'd make you think whether we'd really have to use nuclear power. And no, we don't have to use it.

It's dangerous and we don't have to use it. There are alternatives. So then, why use it at all? Do you get what I mean? Of course, if a country's energy production is 80% based on nuclear power, then it'll take some time to replace it with something else. (And no, I'm not talking about coal or the likes.) But the future goal should be to eventually replace nuclear power completely. It is dangerous and not necessary.

If something is bad, by the way, is a very subjective feeling. What isn't bad for you might be bad for others. But I'm sure that if radioactive material was to leak out of a nuclear reactor near you, then you'd also feel that nuclear power should no longer be used in the future.

It's really too bad people only realize these things when it's too late.

Click to expand...

By your logic, we should also not:

Skydive
Bungee Jump
Swim
Climb Mountains
Operate Computers
Navigate the Globe
Advance any Scientific Study/Understanding
Travel to Space
.....

The list goes on forever. Life is not about avoiding mistakes, it's about weighing risk and payoff, we do that with every action. The value of nuclear energy far outweigh any real risk involved, which was my whole point. Thank you for actually supporting my point, even if indirectly.