Post Reply
Page 2 of 8  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
Switch to Forum Live View More nukes for South Carolina - Are they crazy or just stupid?
3 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 7:07PM #11
solfeggio
Posts: 9,334

Fair enough.  But political will seems to be what it's all about, and that does seem to be lacking.  What would it take to get people on the bandwagon for renewable energy sources? 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 7:14PM #12
teilhard
Posts: 51,373

(1) Considerably HIGHER Energy Bills, and perhaps regular Shortage/Outage Experiences ...


(2) Increased Eco-Disasters ...


Mar 31, 2012 -- 7:07PM, solfeggio wrote:


Fair enough.  But political will seems to be what it's all about, and that does seem to be lacking.  What would it take to get people on the bandwagon for renewable energy sources? 





Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 01, 2012 - 8:43PM #13
Roodog
Posts: 10,168

Don't they need a Federal permit to build a N plant?

For those who have faith, no explanation is neccessary.
For those who have no faith, no explanation is possible.

St. Thomas Aquinas

If one turns his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer is an abomination. Proverbs 28:9
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2012 - 2:14PM #14
mindis1
Posts: 7,906

Mar 30, 2012 -- 10:26PM, solfeggio wrote:

This, when it is well established that even very low levels of ionising radiation from these plants can seriously harm people?


Really? Please provide the evidence about what is “well established” about the “serious harm” caused by “low levels of ionizing radiation” from nuclear power plants.


What if you were to learn that accidents with hydroelectric dams of the past 40 years are responsible for many more deaths than all accidents at nuclear power plants?


Do you know of any accident that has happened at any nuclear power plant that was not preventable?


You mentioned “the problem of disposing of radioactive garbage,” which you say “nobody has ever solved”. You don’t know of death or injury due to any such “problem of disposing of radioactive garbage” during the past 50 years of nuclear power plants, despite not having any laws or treaties regulating the disposal of such “radioactive garbage” for most of these years, do you?  The problem of "radioactive garbage" seems to be somewhat less than the problem of straight razors.


 


BTW, my questions here are not just for Solfeggio.  Anyone is welcomed to answer them.  (I'm sure that's going to happen.)  

Moderated by Merope on Apr 06, 2012 - 02:22PM
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2012 - 4:09PM #15
teilhard
Posts: 51,373

And we all know how Safe and Friendly Coal-Fired Power Plants are, yes ... ??


E.g., Coal MINING is so Safe that NOBODY dies in Coal Mine Accidents these Days, right ... ???


And Coal-Fired Power Generation produces and releases NO harmful Pollutants, right ... ???

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2012 - 4:31PM #16
mountain_man
Posts: 39,658

Apr 2, 2012 -- 2:14PM, mindis1 wrote:

Mar 30, 2012 -- 10:26PM, solfeggio wrote:

This, when it is well established that even very low levels of ionising radiation from these plants can seriously harm people?


Really? Please provide the evidence about what is “well established” about the “serious harm” caused by “low levels of ionizing radiation” from nuclear power plants.


Note the word I highlighted; can. These plants CAN and have seriously harmed and KILLED people. Chernobyl killed 64 outright and an unknown number of people no doubt have died from the radiation spread around the world. Low levels can cause serious damage over time. One problem is that those level do not always stay low.


Are you able and willing to take in information about nuclear energy?


I know about nuclear energy. I also know about nuclear power plants. They're the most expensive and environmentally damaging way to generate electricity.


What if you were to learn that accidents with hydroelectric dams.....


False comparison.


You mentioned “the problem of disposing of radioactive garbage,” which you say “nobody has ever solved”....


That problem has not been solved. You can come up with more false comparisons, but that has nothing to do with this huge problem.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2012 - 7:18PM #17
d_p_m
Posts: 9,983

Mar 30, 2012 -- 10:26PM, solfeggio wrote:

This, when it is well established that even very low levels of ionising radiation from these plants can seriously harm people?

 



Of course it is not well established. Indeed, the epidemiological studies suggest that low level exposure may reduce the probablility of certain types of disease.


The 'no safe threshold' assumption was, and is, simply a very conservative assumption in the absence of data.




"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr



"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

-- Albert Einstein
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2012 - 7:25PM #18
d_p_m
Posts: 9,983

Mar 30, 2012 -- 10:26PM, solfeggio wrote:


This, whilst the Fukushima plant is still in melt-down?
 



Ah yes, Fukushima. The very old, very primitive plant, hit by the biggest tidal wave and strongest earthquake in recorded Japanese history. The one with far fewer inherent safety features than modern designs.


All of which resulted in probably the second worst nuclear accident in the history of commercial nuclear energy - the horrible disaster that resulted in exactly zero radiation related casualties.


As in none, zip, zilch. A couple of workers who broke safety protocols ended up with something like a burn/scald/sunburn.


The two plant workers who died were caught by the tidal wave that went over the seawall.


And yet, zero radiation casualties. Not one death. That's pretty good for the second worst nuclear power accident, don't you think?


Nuclear power is probably the safest form of generally available power. Maybe geothermal is better, but you need special geography for that to work, and I don't know that I have figures for that industry. Certainly it is safer than all the major alternatives.

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr



"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

-- Albert Einstein
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2012 - 7:29PM #19
d_p_m
Posts: 9,983

Mar 30, 2012 -- 11:42PM, mountain_man wrote:

Nuclear power is the most expensive and environmentally destructive way to generate electricity.




No, it isn't. Our nuclear plants are producing electricity at (IIRC) 5.5 cents/Kwh, while in its infinite lack of wisdom, our provincial government is paying something like 80 cents/Kwh for wind generated power.


Nuclear power has a pretty good track record for cost, even without correcting for the very overdone approval and licencing red tape that drives up costs and delays projects.




"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr



"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

-- Albert Einstein
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 02, 2012 - 7:38PM #20
d_p_m
Posts: 9,983

Mar 31, 2012 -- 6:14PM, solfeggio wrote:


What surprises me, though, is that, after various surveys have shown that Americans do not want nuclear power, the U.S. continues to be the world's largest producer of nuclear power, with more than one hunred nuclear plants.




Pikers.


The French generate 79% of their power from nuclear plants, and if the Germans go through with scrapping theirs, they will probably have to build a few more to export the power to Germany. I'm giving the Germans a 60% chance of recovering their sanity and building their own nuclear plants.


With about 3% of the population of the US, our province has 18 reactors in service and two more on order, and they currently provide more than 50% of our power. It's probably only such a low percentage because Niagara Falls is such a lovely cheap source of hydroelectricity. To match us on a per capita basis the US would need about 650 reactors. Of course they prefer to burn coal, which releases both more radiation, and toxic heavy metals that will never self-destruct. Now if we could only get rid of the damn wind turbines we'd be doing rather well.





"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr



"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

-- Albert Einstein
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 8  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook