Claim we're not free and we're stupid if we think so. Advocate for government controlled breeding.JustanotherGamer said:Why do they call nuclear energy clean when it makes tons and tons of toxic waste every day that needs to be dumped and causes contamination for 0000's of years?
Why do politicians never say what we need to do is stop fucking breeding like morons and let the population stabilize at a level where we can feed everyone and create enough renewable energy to service us all? Is it because that would leave huge hole in the amount of poverty and cheap labour to service the greedy cunts.
You may think that working ever day just to own a house and have kids is freedom i'l just say you are fucked in the head if you think you are free and happy.
Fantastic.
...No.Evil Smurf said:Nope, I want renewable energy. The sun for example will never run out.
I mean, for our purposes it might as well never run out. But no.
The amount of heat produced by humanity is negligible. I wouldn't expect any problems from increasing nuclear power usage.spartan231490 said:It's not causing global warming. What I mean is that with nuclear power, massive amounts of energy that was locked away in matter is being released as heat and electricity(which always degrades to heat when used). It isn't like hydro or even coal power, where that energy was part of the system in the form of chemical or potential energy. We are increasing the overall energy of the Earth system by converting matter into energy. This wouldn't normally pose a problem, but in a situation where the Earth can't even dissipate the heat energy it gains from solar radiation it merely exacerbates the issue. Don't get me wrong, the amount of electricity human kind needs is a tiny fraction of the energy we absorb from solar radiation, but if we turn to nuclear power as a permanent source of electrical power then over the centuries that extra heat energy might play a role.rednose1 said:spartan231490 said:Mostly, I see some problems with the sustainability. For one, you are adding energy to the Earth system by nuclear power, instead of just converting. This is going to cause more problems with global warming, since we're adding an additional heat source to the equation. It won't matter much over the short term, but over the long term . . .rednose1 said:If you don't mind me asking, why not?spartan231490 said:Personally, I don't think nuclear is the way.
Not gonna try to change your mind, just like to see what the prevailing arguments against it are....so I can counter them and change your mind!!!MUWHAHAHA!!!
Slightly related, look up Oklo reactor. It was a natural occurring reactor that underwent fission for a couple thousand years, producing about 100KW of energy. pretty awesome.
Also, we have nothing to do with all that radioactive waste. Sure, we can store it somewhat safely for now, but many countries are running out of room to store it in, and with the kind of half-life your looking at for these things, we need to be able to safely store centuries or millennia of waste before it's actually sustainable, and we can't. Not to mention what happens 100 years from now when we run into a uranium crisis that will be every bit as bad as the current oil crisis, maybe worse.
I also think that we will find something better within the next half century or so. Zero point energy, maybe, and then there will be no reason to have risked these dangers.
Nuclear plants are phenomenally stable in normal conditions, and even mildly bad conditions, but we still haven't figured out how to secure them against natural disasters like Earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and other events that happen with reasonable frequency. Look at fukushima, the disaster was about 2.5 years ago and it's only now being discovered how bad the leaking is, and it could have been much worse.
I also have a problem with the statement that nuclear plants are safe. Yes, nuclear plants are perfectly safe under normal conditions, but until we can make these plants safe in our infrequent but consistent disasters we have no business building them in hurricane zones or along fault-lines. Further, no other power plant has or ever will have an accident so bad as to render large tracts of land unlivable for decades or centuries.
Also, even if we could make them run safely through natural disasters, what about if a large war broke out? How would a running nuclear plant do if it was fire-bombed on-par with dresden, and if you shut it off during a war, where would you get the power?
The far better solution, for the environment and society, is to use solar power with smaller scale distribution. It's true that solar is quite difficult to generate enough power to run a plant, but it's laughable easy to run a home on solar, even if areas with poor sunlight. I live on the 45th latitude in an area that sees a lot of cloud cover and rainfall each year, and I know of a family that gets probably 80% of their power needs from about a 10 foot square of solar panels. They make up the difference with propane appliances and a generator. If they had even enough solar panels to cover half their roof, they would be able to run on pure solar no problem at all, and so would the vast majority of the civilized world.
I'm not sure where you get the idea of nuclear power causing global warming, the only thing coming out of the cooling tower is steam.
As to the rest, i said I wouldn't try to change your mind, so not gonna start. Feel free to think what ya want, differing opinions are always good!
I'm not even sure nuclear reactors generate more heat then the coal plants they would replace.
Oh, the hubris.LiberalSquirrel said:As much as I want to like nuclear power, I don't. There's too many possible problems and too much possible impact to the environment due to radioactive wastes. It's better than coal, sure. But that doesn't mean it's good.
I'm more of a renewable energy person. Solar, wind, all that lovely stuff.