|
|
On August 24 2012 06:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:57 HunterX11 wrote:On August 24 2012 05:54 screamingpalm wrote:On August 23 2012 20:43 AllSalesFinal wrote:On August 23 2012 16:19 screamingpalm wrote:Romney relased some details on his energy policy, no surprises: -Increased offshore drilling -Shifting powers to the states (can't wait to see what AZ will do with that lol- joking aside mountaintop removal in WV) -Sounds like more public land to be sold off (see: Tim DeChristopher ) -No plans for renewable sources (wind, solar, etc) -Subsidies for oil companies which don't need them, no funding for alternative fuels- sink or swim on their own Source Your first point I really do not see a problem with that, Utilize the resources that are available, and frankly I'm not an environmentalist and really don't care about it =/. Your second point about shifting powers to the states... You do realize that is how the government is supposed to operate right? The states are supposed to be able to govern on their own. The federal government is just supposed to make sure individual states don't secede from the union. Environmental concerns on the first point, but this also ties in with his stance on renewable sources. If he would at least put forth some effort there, and if it is then determined we still need increased offshore drilling, then I would be more open to the idea. I see energy policy as a nation-wide concern and not a local one. Just because I don't live in WV, doesn't mean I don't care if they get overzealous with mountain top removal. People who live in Maryland and Pennsylvania should have a right to be concerned about offshore drilling in VA and NC. And since I used to live in VA, I know how eager they are to rape and pillage the land of resources and over develop everything lol. Energy is one issue where both sides really do eschew practical measures for political reasons in that we really need to get behind nuclear energy yesterday if we want to mitigate the impact on our lifestyles when cheap energy becomes scarce. What is this "both sides" business? While I'm sure there are some exceptions, republicans are for pretty much every kind of energy, including nuclear energy. The only thing that republicans aren't interested in is subsidizing the development of green energy sources. The democrats are clearly the only ones who are obstructing the development of fossil fuel and nuclear power.
Nuclear is politically unpopular among both Democratic and Republican constituencies which is why both sides oppose it in practice. Some politicians might advocate for it in the abstract, but I don't know of any who actually oppose NIMBYism. I don't think you'll see or find quotes of Mitt Romney or John McCain or George Walker Bush or George Herbert Walker saying we need to invest more in nuclear (though Reagan and Carter supported it).
|
On August 24 2012 06:37 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 06:27 Mohdoo wrote:
Nuclear power is extremely sustainable and is the cleanest energy we have. Nuclear reactors have come to be much more efficient, safe, and renewable. Modern reactors can have their waste turned into usable fuel. I agree that fossil fuels are really silly, as they pollute much more than any other alternative, but modern nuclear reactors are extremely good. I suppose sustainability is debatable, here is an argument against it: Show nested quote +
Sustainability: Is nuclear energy sustainable?
For several reasons, nuclear power is neither «green» nor sustainable:
Both the nuclear waste as well as retired nuclear plants are a life-threatening legacy for hundreds of future generations. It flagrantly contradicts with the thoughts of sustainability if future generations have to deal with dangerous waste generated from preceding generations. See also here .
Uranium, the source of energy for nuclear power, is available on earth only in limited quantities. Uranium is being «consumed» (i.e. converted) during the operation of the nuclear power plant so it won't be available any more for future generations. This again contradicts the principle of sustainability.
Show nested quote +
Definition of sustainability - what is sustainable?
«Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.»
This is probably the most broadly accepted definition of sustainability developed in 1987, by the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission). Instead of sustainability, often terms like sustainable development, sustainable prosperity or sustainable genuine progress are used. They more or less all mean the same as defined above. Details can be found e.g. in Wikipedia .
The Natural Step Framework's definition of sustainability includes four system conditions (scientific principles) that lead to a sustainable society. These conditions, that must be met in order to have a sustainable society, are as listed below.
In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing:
concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth's crust;
concentrations of substances produced by society;
degradation by physical means and, in that society
the ability for humans to meet their needs is not systematically undermined.
Source
Our planet is not going to run out of uranium for an absurdly long time. We'll be in another solar system by then.
http://www.gizmag.com/uranium-seawater/23826/
Check that out. The argument regarding sustainability is not valid. We'll run out of sand before we run out of uranium lol.
|
On August 24 2012 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 06:37 screamingpalm wrote:On August 24 2012 06:27 Mohdoo wrote:
Nuclear power is extremely sustainable and is the cleanest energy we have. Nuclear reactors have come to be much more efficient, safe, and renewable. Modern reactors can have their waste turned into usable fuel. I agree that fossil fuels are really silly, as they pollute much more than any other alternative, but modern nuclear reactors are extremely good. I suppose sustainability is debatable, here is an argument against it:
Sustainability: Is nuclear energy sustainable?
For several reasons, nuclear power is neither «green» nor sustainable:
Both the nuclear waste as well as retired nuclear plants are a life-threatening legacy for hundreds of future generations. It flagrantly contradicts with the thoughts of sustainability if future generations have to deal with dangerous waste generated from preceding generations. See also here .
Uranium, the source of energy for nuclear power, is available on earth only in limited quantities. Uranium is being «consumed» (i.e. converted) during the operation of the nuclear power plant so it won't be available any more for future generations. This again contradicts the principle of sustainability.
Definition of sustainability - what is sustainable?
«Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.»
This is probably the most broadly accepted definition of sustainability developed in 1987, by the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission). Instead of sustainability, often terms like sustainable development, sustainable prosperity or sustainable genuine progress are used. They more or less all mean the same as defined above. Details can be found e.g. in Wikipedia .
The Natural Step Framework's definition of sustainability includes four system conditions (scientific principles) that lead to a sustainable society. These conditions, that must be met in order to have a sustainable society, are as listed below.
In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing:
concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth's crust;
concentrations of substances produced by society;
degradation by physical means and, in that society
the ability for humans to meet their needs is not systematically undermined.
Source Our planet is not going to run out of uranium for an absurdly long time. We'll be in another solar system by then. http://www.gizmag.com/uranium-seawater/23826/Check that out. The argument regarding sustainability is not valid. We'll run out of sand before we run out of uranium lol.
Yeah, I admit, I didn't really follow the argument about Uranium other than it is technically a limited resource lol. I do think the waste argument on sustainability is fair though.
|
On August 24 2012 06:41 gruff wrote:
Even if you'd replace all the electric producing with nuclear power, you'd still have big demands for fossile fuel for heat, industry and transportation. It's not as easy as just building nuclear plants all over, you also have to change the whole infrastructure and develop new technology in other areas if you want to use the nuclear power to lower emissions of green house gases and pollution. The solutions will most likely not be one big technical breakthrough and it's a bit foolish to hope for one.
The question is if we're forcibly terminating any attempts at improving nuclear infrastructure via state-wide bans and overregulation. You can scream until you're blue in the mouth about how long we'll be dependent on fossil fuels because of the time cost in infrastructure. Fast forward 10 to 20 years and the same types of people are still screaming. There is no reflection on relenting in year 1 would mean less whining at year 20. It's the excuse that keeps on going and going and going. Bottom line is if you don't enact the right measures today, there will never be development in the future.
|
On August 24 2012 06:38 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 06:35 DetriusXii wrote:On August 24 2012 05:34 Souma wrote:On August 24 2012 05:11 DoubleReed wrote:
I've never understood where people have the idea that "life begins at conception." Can someone explain this to me? Because it's an idea that has come about entirely randomly and nonsensically.
The bible actually says life begins at birth, which is later than most people think. So it's not from the bible.
Science if anything tells us that it does not have a nervous system, consciousness, or a brain until much much later into the pregnancy and cannot accurately be described as anything we consider a 'human life.'
So yea. I don't get it. Where did this idea come from exactly? For me it's neither religion nor science. It's the mere fact that once the egg is fertilized, it's going to inevitably (with the exception of complications) become a human being. While it may not be considered 'human life,' it eventually will be. Now while most pro-choice advocates would be satisfied with the knowledge that it is not actual human life, my conscience will always remind me otherwise. It will always remind me that it could have been an individual, standing on its own two feet, and affecting the world in ways that will never be known. So do you get teary eyed for all the potential universes that were destroyed because of the choices you made and because the choices your parents made? I stayed in my office rather than going outside for lunch today. Should I now have to consider the circumstances of the lives that were destroyed because I didn't go outside for lunch today? Here's an analogy to hard drives that could work fairly well. We don't generally mourn over the loss of an empty hard drive for the potential it could have had in holding information. We mourn over the loss of a hard drive that has current information though, like family photos, credit card information, and applications we install. Would you fret over an empty hard drive based on the fact that it could have had information of value to you on it or like most people, do you take it back to the retailer and ask for a refund? Unfortunately for you, you can toss at me all the half-assed analogies you want, it will never be equivalent to the subject at hand. You're not comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing apples to a fucking rock.
Teleology is kind of a half-assed ontology though. Sure, it was groundbreaking a couple of millennia ago, but there's been a lot of science and thinking going on since then.
|
On August 24 2012 06:38 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 06:35 DetriusXii wrote:On August 24 2012 05:34 Souma wrote:On August 24 2012 05:11 DoubleReed wrote:
I've never understood where people have the idea that "life begins at conception." Can someone explain this to me? Because it's an idea that has come about entirely randomly and nonsensically.
The bible actually says life begins at birth, which is later than most people think. So it's not from the bible.
Science if anything tells us that it does not have a nervous system, consciousness, or a brain until much much later into the pregnancy and cannot accurately be described as anything we consider a 'human life.'
So yea. I don't get it. Where did this idea come from exactly? For me it's neither religion nor science. It's the mere fact that once the egg is fertilized, it's going to inevitably (with the exception of complications) become a human being. While it may not be considered 'human life,' it eventually will be. Now while most pro-choice advocates would be satisfied with the knowledge that it is not actual human life, my conscience will always remind me otherwise. It will always remind me that it could have been an individual, standing on its own two feet, and affecting the world in ways that will never be known. So do you get teary eyed for all the potential universes that were destroyed because of the choices you made and because the choices your parents made? I stayed in my office rather than going outside for lunch today. Should I now have to consider the circumstances of the lives that were destroyed because I didn't go outside for lunch today? Here's an analogy to hard drives that could work fairly well. We don't generally mourn over the loss of an empty hard drive for the potential it could have had in holding information. We mourn over the loss of a hard drive that has current information though, like family photos, credit card information, and applications we install. Would you fret over an empty hard drive based on the fact that it could have had information of value to you on it or like most people, do you take it back to the retailer and ask for a refund? Unfortunately for you, you can toss at me all the half-assed analogies you want, it will never be equivalent to the subject at hand. You're not comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing apples to a fucking rock.
I may be pro-choice as all hell, but I certainly must commend you on a fantastic response. 
|
On August 24 2012 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 06:37 screamingpalm wrote:On August 24 2012 06:27 Mohdoo wrote:
Nuclear power is extremely sustainable and is the cleanest energy we have. Nuclear reactors have come to be much more efficient, safe, and renewable. Modern reactors can have their waste turned into usable fuel. I agree that fossil fuels are really silly, as they pollute much more than any other alternative, but modern nuclear reactors are extremely good. I suppose sustainability is debatable, here is an argument against it:
Sustainability: Is nuclear energy sustainable?
For several reasons, nuclear power is neither «green» nor sustainable:
Both the nuclear waste as well as retired nuclear plants are a life-threatening legacy for hundreds of future generations. It flagrantly contradicts with the thoughts of sustainability if future generations have to deal with dangerous waste generated from preceding generations. See also here .
Uranium, the source of energy for nuclear power, is available on earth only in limited quantities. Uranium is being «consumed» (i.e. converted) during the operation of the nuclear power plant so it won't be available any more for future generations. This again contradicts the principle of sustainability.
Definition of sustainability - what is sustainable?
«Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.»
This is probably the most broadly accepted definition of sustainability developed in 1987, by the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission). Instead of sustainability, often terms like sustainable development, sustainable prosperity or sustainable genuine progress are used. They more or less all mean the same as defined above. Details can be found e.g. in Wikipedia .
The Natural Step Framework's definition of sustainability includes four system conditions (scientific principles) that lead to a sustainable society. These conditions, that must be met in order to have a sustainable society, are as listed below.
In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing:
concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth's crust;
concentrations of substances produced by society;
degradation by physical means and, in that society
the ability for humans to meet their needs is not systematically undermined.
Source Our planet is not going to run out of uranium for an absurdly long time. We'll be in another solar system by then. http://www.gizmag.com/uranium-seawater/23826/Check that out. The argument regarding sustainability is not valid. We'll run out of sand before we run out of uranium lol.
but why would we spent the money to make it profitable to subtract Uranium from the oceans when you can spend the same money on solar, wind,tidal and geothermic energy and those will never run out. just seems like a dumb move
|
On August 24 2012 06:52 henkel wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On August 24 2012 06:37 screamingpalm wrote:On August 24 2012 06:27 Mohdoo wrote:
Nuclear power is extremely sustainable and is the cleanest energy we have. Nuclear reactors have come to be much more efficient, safe, and renewable. Modern reactors can have their waste turned into usable fuel. I agree that fossil fuels are really silly, as they pollute much more than any other alternative, but modern nuclear reactors are extremely good. I suppose sustainability is debatable, here is an argument against it:
Sustainability: Is nuclear energy sustainable?
For several reasons, nuclear power is neither «green» nor sustainable:
Both the nuclear waste as well as retired nuclear plants are a life-threatening legacy for hundreds of future generations. It flagrantly contradicts with the thoughts of sustainability if future generations have to deal with dangerous waste generated from preceding generations. See also here .
Uranium, the source of energy for nuclear power, is available on earth only in limited quantities. Uranium is being «consumed» (i.e. converted) during the operation of the nuclear power plant so it won't be available any more for future generations. This again contradicts the principle of sustainability.
Definition of sustainability - what is sustainable?
«Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.»
This is probably the most broadly accepted definition of sustainability developed in 1987, by the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission). Instead of sustainability, often terms like sustainable development, sustainable prosperity or sustainable genuine progress are used. They more or less all mean the same as defined above. Details can be found e.g. in Wikipedia .
The Natural Step Framework's definition of sustainability includes four system conditions (scientific principles) that lead to a sustainable society. These conditions, that must be met in order to have a sustainable society, are as listed below.
In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing:
concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth's crust;
concentrations of substances produced by society;
degradation by physical means and, in that society
the ability for humans to meet their needs is not systematically undermined.
Source Our planet is not going to run out of uranium for an absurdly long time. We'll be in another solar system by then. http://www.gizmag.com/uranium-seawater/23826/Check that out. The argument regarding sustainability is not valid. We'll run out of sand before we run out of uranium lol. but why would we spent the money to make it profitable to subtract Uranium from the oceans when you can spend the same money on solar, wind,tidal and geothermic energy and those will never run out. just seems like a dumb move
Doesn't nuclear power blow everything out of the water when comes to cost effectiveness and least amount of waste? I was under the impression that nuclear is essentially superior to everything until solar energy becomes less expensive (which it has been steadily doing).
|
On August 24 2012 06:45 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 06:03 xDaunt wrote:On August 24 2012 05:57 HunterX11 wrote:On August 24 2012 05:54 screamingpalm wrote:On August 23 2012 20:43 AllSalesFinal wrote:On August 23 2012 16:19 screamingpalm wrote:Romney relased some details on his energy policy, no surprises: -Increased offshore drilling -Shifting powers to the states (can't wait to see what AZ will do with that lol- joking aside mountaintop removal in WV) -Sounds like more public land to be sold off (see: Tim DeChristopher ) -No plans for renewable sources (wind, solar, etc) -Subsidies for oil companies which don't need them, no funding for alternative fuels- sink or swim on their own Source Your first point I really do not see a problem with that, Utilize the resources that are available, and frankly I'm not an environmentalist and really don't care about it =/. Your second point about shifting powers to the states... You do realize that is how the government is supposed to operate right? The states are supposed to be able to govern on their own. The federal government is just supposed to make sure individual states don't secede from the union. Environmental concerns on the first point, but this also ties in with his stance on renewable sources. If he would at least put forth some effort there, and if it is then determined we still need increased offshore drilling, then I would be more open to the idea. I see energy policy as a nation-wide concern and not a local one. Just because I don't live in WV, doesn't mean I don't care if they get overzealous with mountain top removal. People who live in Maryland and Pennsylvania should have a right to be concerned about offshore drilling in VA and NC. And since I used to live in VA, I know how eager they are to rape and pillage the land of resources and over develop everything lol. Energy is one issue where both sides really do eschew practical measures for political reasons in that we really need to get behind nuclear energy yesterday if we want to mitigate the impact on our lifestyles when cheap energy becomes scarce. What is this "both sides" business? While I'm sure there are some exceptions, republicans are for pretty much every kind of energy, including nuclear energy. The only thing that republicans aren't interested in is subsidizing the development of green energy sources. The democrats are clearly the only ones who are obstructing the development of fossil fuel and nuclear power. Nuclear is politically unpopular among both Democratic and Republican constituencies which is why both sides oppose it in practice. Some politicians might advocate for it in the abstract, but I don't know of any who actually oppose NIMBYism. I don't think you'll see or find quotes of Mitt Romney or John McCain or George Walker Bush or George Herbert Walker saying we need to invest more in nuclear (though Reagan and Carter supported it).
Romney and McCain both actively support the development nuclear energy. I can't think of any prominent republicans that don't. The only reason why it hasn't gone anywhere is because democrats obstruct it.
|
On August 24 2012 06:55 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 06:52 henkel wrote:On August 24 2012 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On August 24 2012 06:37 screamingpalm wrote:On August 24 2012 06:27 Mohdoo wrote:
Nuclear power is extremely sustainable and is the cleanest energy we have. Nuclear reactors have come to be much more efficient, safe, and renewable. Modern reactors can have their waste turned into usable fuel. I agree that fossil fuels are really silly, as they pollute much more than any other alternative, but modern nuclear reactors are extremely good. I suppose sustainability is debatable, here is an argument against it:
Sustainability: Is nuclear energy sustainable?
For several reasons, nuclear power is neither «green» nor sustainable:
Both the nuclear waste as well as retired nuclear plants are a life-threatening legacy for hundreds of future generations. It flagrantly contradicts with the thoughts of sustainability if future generations have to deal with dangerous waste generated from preceding generations. See also here .
Uranium, the source of energy for nuclear power, is available on earth only in limited quantities. Uranium is being «consumed» (i.e. converted) during the operation of the nuclear power plant so it won't be available any more for future generations. This again contradicts the principle of sustainability.
Definition of sustainability - what is sustainable?
«Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.»
This is probably the most broadly accepted definition of sustainability developed in 1987, by the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission). Instead of sustainability, often terms like sustainable development, sustainable prosperity or sustainable genuine progress are used. They more or less all mean the same as defined above. Details can be found e.g. in Wikipedia .
The Natural Step Framework's definition of sustainability includes four system conditions (scientific principles) that lead to a sustainable society. These conditions, that must be met in order to have a sustainable society, are as listed below.
In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing:
concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth's crust;
concentrations of substances produced by society;
degradation by physical means and, in that society
the ability for humans to meet their needs is not systematically undermined.
Source Our planet is not going to run out of uranium for an absurdly long time. We'll be in another solar system by then. http://www.gizmag.com/uranium-seawater/23826/Check that out. The argument regarding sustainability is not valid. We'll run out of sand before we run out of uranium lol. but why would we spent the money to make it profitable to subtract Uranium from the oceans when you can spend the same money on solar, wind,tidal and geothermic energy and those will never run out. just seems like a dumb move Doesn't nuclear power blow everything out of the water when comes to cost effectiveness and least amount of waste? I was under the impression that nuclear is essentially superior to everything until solar energy becomes less expensive (which it has been steadily doing).
Yes. All of the types mentioned are vastly inferior. Solar is the only one that has the potential, but its extremely far out right now. As it stands, we aren't very good at solar energy at all. They are very inefficient and we are struggling to properly understand the materials that make solar panels. I used to work in an inorganic chemistry lab that works on solar panels, and its just extremely difficult. There is a lab that is trying to reverse engineer photosynthesis at the atomic level, but they have had spotty success. The reason for trying to just reverse engineer photosynthesis is the fact that solar panels are extremely difficult.
However, we have absolutely safe, efficient nuclear energy. But because of the fact that 50 year old reactors went shitty after a earthquake and tsunami combo in Japan, good reactors get a bad rap. The reactors in Japan were not only shitty, unsafe reactors. But they were also neglected and the companies managing them refused to comply with safety standards. Oy. Sorry for the rant, lol.
On August 24 2012 06:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 06:45 HunterX11 wrote:On August 24 2012 06:03 xDaunt wrote:On August 24 2012 05:57 HunterX11 wrote:On August 24 2012 05:54 screamingpalm wrote:On August 23 2012 20:43 AllSalesFinal wrote:On August 23 2012 16:19 screamingpalm wrote:Romney relased some details on his energy policy, no surprises: -Increased offshore drilling -Shifting powers to the states (can't wait to see what AZ will do with that lol- joking aside mountaintop removal in WV) -Sounds like more public land to be sold off (see: Tim DeChristopher ) -No plans for renewable sources (wind, solar, etc) -Subsidies for oil companies which don't need them, no funding for alternative fuels- sink or swim on their own Source Your first point I really do not see a problem with that, Utilize the resources that are available, and frankly I'm not an environmentalist and really don't care about it =/. Your second point about shifting powers to the states... You do realize that is how the government is supposed to operate right? The states are supposed to be able to govern on their own. The federal government is just supposed to make sure individual states don't secede from the union. Environmental concerns on the first point, but this also ties in with his stance on renewable sources. If he would at least put forth some effort there, and if it is then determined we still need increased offshore drilling, then I would be more open to the idea. I see energy policy as a nation-wide concern and not a local one. Just because I don't live in WV, doesn't mean I don't care if they get overzealous with mountain top removal. People who live in Maryland and Pennsylvania should have a right to be concerned about offshore drilling in VA and NC. And since I used to live in VA, I know how eager they are to rape and pillage the land of resources and over develop everything lol. Energy is one issue where both sides really do eschew practical measures for political reasons in that we really need to get behind nuclear energy yesterday if we want to mitigate the impact on our lifestyles when cheap energy becomes scarce. What is this "both sides" business? While I'm sure there are some exceptions, republicans are for pretty much every kind of energy, including nuclear energy. The only thing that republicans aren't interested in is subsidizing the development of green energy sources. The democrats are clearly the only ones who are obstructing the development of fossil fuel and nuclear power. Nuclear is politically unpopular among both Democratic and Republican constituencies which is why both sides oppose it in practice. Some politicians might advocate for it in the abstract, but I don't know of any who actually oppose NIMBYism. I don't think you'll see or find quotes of Mitt Romney or John McCain or George Walker Bush or George Herbert Walker saying we need to invest more in nuclear (though Reagan and Carter supported it). Romney and McCain both actively support the development nuclear energy. I can't think of any prominent republicans that don't. The only reason why it hasn't gone anywhere is because democrats obstruct it.
If Romney outdoes Obama in his push for nuclear energy, he's a hell of a lot closer to getting my vote. The stigma against nuclear power is one of mankind's greatest tragedies. You will not find a single person educated on the matter who have anything bad to say about it. The Japanese reactors and the Chernobyl reactors are not even similar to modern design T_T
|
On August 24 2012 06:14 screamingpalm wrote:
I don't think nuclear power is the answer either, we need to look at sustainability and renewable sources. I think it is pretty clear that this is the future and the GOP's stale and stagnant policy will leave us trailing way behind nations who contiue to develop. Hell, even the Democrats' plans aren't aggressive enough in my opinion.
Then we are back at the existing problem: The technology you want do not exist! First generation biofuel is ruining acres, increasing food-prices and pollutes the groundwater. The most used windmills take large amounts of neodyne and dysprosium and use some dangerous compounds during construction. Solar panels use Indium or Tellurium and have a low life expectancy. Water turbines are rather exclusive and their level of pollution is not insignificant either.
The current generation of nuclear power is more or less a sidegrade compared to earlier versions except for safety and a little bit of reuse of old fuel. Next generation of the nuclear power plant is looking very promising in theory and can almost eliminate the medium and high radioactive waste. Only problem is that the technology is at least 40 years from full scale...
What we need is second/third generation biofuels. which are only marginally viable at the moment. New generations of high yielding ethanol fuel cells (expected in ~20 years). A safe storage of hydrogen for fuelcells which is already proved possible in more than one form. A further development in energy storage (this one is moving very fast atm.) and windmills and solar panels without the need for the rare earth metals (already close to the market).
Drilling near Greenland and on the deep water is still a bit too expensive, but instead of offering the oil companies subsidies to encourage a faster exhaustion of the reserves like the republicans want, it would seem like a better idea to let the prices on energy rise and take it from there. People should get a good incentive to develop the technologies to compete against oil even by laissez-faire. Only real problem in this is global warming and the need for immediate action. Electical-cars, biofuel-cars and hydrogen-cars are the future but all of these are still not there technologically.
|
On August 24 2012 06:55 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 06:52 henkel wrote:On August 24 2012 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On August 24 2012 06:37 screamingpalm wrote:On August 24 2012 06:27 Mohdoo wrote:
Nuclear power is extremely sustainable and is the cleanest energy we have. Nuclear reactors have come to be much more efficient, safe, and renewable. Modern reactors can have their waste turned into usable fuel. I agree that fossil fuels are really silly, as they pollute much more than any other alternative, but modern nuclear reactors are extremely good. I suppose sustainability is debatable, here is an argument against it:
Sustainability: Is nuclear energy sustainable?
For several reasons, nuclear power is neither «green» nor sustainable:
Both the nuclear waste as well as retired nuclear plants are a life-threatening legacy for hundreds of future generations. It flagrantly contradicts with the thoughts of sustainability if future generations have to deal with dangerous waste generated from preceding generations. See also here .
Uranium, the source of energy for nuclear power, is available on earth only in limited quantities. Uranium is being «consumed» (i.e. converted) during the operation of the nuclear power plant so it won't be available any more for future generations. This again contradicts the principle of sustainability.
Definition of sustainability - what is sustainable?
«Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.»
This is probably the most broadly accepted definition of sustainability developed in 1987, by the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission). Instead of sustainability, often terms like sustainable development, sustainable prosperity or sustainable genuine progress are used. They more or less all mean the same as defined above. Details can be found e.g. in Wikipedia .
The Natural Step Framework's definition of sustainability includes four system conditions (scientific principles) that lead to a sustainable society. These conditions, that must be met in order to have a sustainable society, are as listed below.
In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing:
concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth's crust;
concentrations of substances produced by society;
degradation by physical means and, in that society
the ability for humans to meet their needs is not systematically undermined.
Source Our planet is not going to run out of uranium for an absurdly long time. We'll be in another solar system by then. http://www.gizmag.com/uranium-seawater/23826/Check that out. The argument regarding sustainability is not valid. We'll run out of sand before we run out of uranium lol. but why would we spent the money to make it profitable to subtract Uranium from the oceans when you can spend the same money on solar, wind,tidal and geothermic energy and those will never run out. just seems like a dumb move Doesn't nuclear power blow everything out of the water when comes to cost effectiveness and least amount of waste? I was under the impression that nuclear is essentially superior to everything until solar energy becomes less expensive (which it has been steadily doing).
SImply put no it doesn't. Until someone somewhere figures out a way to either get rid of the depleted Uranium (or plutonium doesn't really make a difference) without poisoning the entire area, or to recycle it into something non-radioactive you really cannot say nuclear power produces the least waste. In absolute numbers it might be low, but the waste produced is far more dangerous than anything related to wind or solar energy.
This is also where the sustainable argument comes from, we might not run out of uranium (frankly i have no clue, or reason to doubt the report cited above), but we definitly lack a way to dispose it safely currently, which puts the sustainability into doubt.
The other debate is the relative risk of nuclear power, I don't want to derail this topic completly (frankly the power discussion is already offtopic), but that is usually the next argument why nuclear power is bad (or dangerous at the very least).
|
On August 24 2012 06:55 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 06:52 henkel wrote:On August 24 2012 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:On August 24 2012 06:37 screamingpalm wrote:On August 24 2012 06:27 Mohdoo wrote:
Nuclear power is extremely sustainable and is the cleanest energy we have. Nuclear reactors have come to be much more efficient, safe, and renewable. Modern reactors can have their waste turned into usable fuel. I agree that fossil fuels are really silly, as they pollute much more than any other alternative, but modern nuclear reactors are extremely good. I suppose sustainability is debatable, here is an argument against it:
Sustainability: Is nuclear energy sustainable?
For several reasons, nuclear power is neither «green» nor sustainable:
Both the nuclear waste as well as retired nuclear plants are a life-threatening legacy for hundreds of future generations. It flagrantly contradicts with the thoughts of sustainability if future generations have to deal with dangerous waste generated from preceding generations. See also here .
Uranium, the source of energy for nuclear power, is available on earth only in limited quantities. Uranium is being «consumed» (i.e. converted) during the operation of the nuclear power plant so it won't be available any more for future generations. This again contradicts the principle of sustainability.
Definition of sustainability - what is sustainable?
«Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.»
This is probably the most broadly accepted definition of sustainability developed in 1987, by the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission). Instead of sustainability, often terms like sustainable development, sustainable prosperity or sustainable genuine progress are used. They more or less all mean the same as defined above. Details can be found e.g. in Wikipedia .
The Natural Step Framework's definition of sustainability includes four system conditions (scientific principles) that lead to a sustainable society. These conditions, that must be met in order to have a sustainable society, are as listed below.
In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing:
concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth's crust;
concentrations of substances produced by society;
degradation by physical means and, in that society
the ability for humans to meet their needs is not systematically undermined.
Source Our planet is not going to run out of uranium for an absurdly long time. We'll be in another solar system by then. http://www.gizmag.com/uranium-seawater/23826/Check that out. The argument regarding sustainability is not valid. We'll run out of sand before we run out of uranium lol. but why would we spent the money to make it profitable to subtract Uranium from the oceans when you can spend the same money on solar, wind,tidal and geothermic energy and those will never run out. just seems like a dumb move Doesn't nuclear power blow everything out of the water when comes to cost effectiveness and least amount of waste? I was under the impression that nuclear is essentially superior to everything until solar energy becomes less expensive (which it has been steadily doing).
I think right now nat gas is the cheapest. Nukes are pretty cheap to run but very pricy to build.
In terms of pollution it is hard to compare since its a tradeoff between CO2 and nuclear waste.
|
On August 24 2012 07:05 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 06:14 screamingpalm wrote:
I don't think nuclear power is the answer either, we need to look at sustainability and renewable sources. I think it is pretty clear that this is the future and the GOP's stale and stagnant policy will leave us trailing way behind nations who contiue to develop. Hell, even the Democrats' plans aren't aggressive enough in my opinion. Water turbines are rather exclusive and their level of pollution is not insignificant either.
I have no idea what the other things you are talking about mean, so I'll simply assume you are correct, but i honestly don't understand what you mean here. Water turbines are exclusive? Meaning they require Water to run? Is that what you are trying to say? If so I might agree, but what kind of pollution are they supposed to produce? Damming a river and running a turbine doesn't really pollute anything, it might not be possible everywhere but aside from building the plant once no pollution whatsoever will be produced.
Wind Turbines as built and used in Austria cost about 150k Euro to build and are expected to run with minimal additional costs for 10 years, producing about 135k worth of power in that timeframe. So while they might not be profitable under current energy prices they most likely will be within 10 years (if current trends continue).
Funnily enough if the EU cut all energy subsidiaries to Nuclear power the rise in price would already make them profitable.
|
On August 24 2012 06:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 06:41 gruff wrote:
Even if you'd replace all the electric producing with nuclear power, you'd still have big demands for fossile fuel for heat, industry and transportation. It's not as easy as just building nuclear plants all over, you also have to change the whole infrastructure and develop new technology in other areas if you want to use the nuclear power to lower emissions of green house gases and pollution. The solutions will most likely not be one big technical breakthrough and it's a bit foolish to hope for one. The question is if we're forcibly terminating any attempts at improving nuclear infrastructure via state-wide bans and overregulation. You can scream until you're blue in the mouth about how long we'll be dependent on fossil fuels because of the time cost in infrastructure. Fast forward 10 to 20 years and the same types of people are still screaming. There is no reflection on relenting in year 1 would mean less whining at year 20. It's the excuse that keeps on going and going and going. Bottom line is if you don't enact the right measures today, there will never be development in the future.
My point was more that even if we relent and build nuclear power plants to our hearts content it will most likely not solve our energy problems (from an environmental pov) in itself. By all means build more nuclear plants, I'm all for it, but don't fool yourself into thinking it will solve our enviromental problems we have with energy production no matter how hard you wish it too. Maybe I'm just a bit tired of these debates coming down to "this energy source versus that" when the problem is much more large scale and encompasses many more areas than pure energy technology. I can make a long list of things I think need to be done but I suppose that might be better suited in another thread since it's not really about the election anymore. And please don't feel like I'm arguing against you here, I'm just ranting a bit. 
|
On August 24 2012 07:11 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 07:05 radiatoren wrote:On August 24 2012 06:14 screamingpalm wrote:
I don't think nuclear power is the answer either, we need to look at sustainability and renewable sources. I think it is pretty clear that this is the future and the GOP's stale and stagnant policy will leave us trailing way behind nations who contiue to develop. Hell, even the Democrats' plans aren't aggressive enough in my opinion. Water turbines are rather exclusive and their level of pollution is not insignificant either. I have no idea what the other things you are talking about mean, so I'll simply assume you are correct, but i honestly don't understand what you mean here. Water turbines are exclusive? Meaning they require Water to run? Is that what you are trying to say? If so I might agree, but what kind of pollution are they supposed to produce? Damming a river and running a turbine doesn't really pollute anything, it might not be possible everywhere but aside from building the plant once no pollution whatsoever will be produced. Wind Turbines as built and used in Austria cost about 150k Euro to build and are expected to run with minimal additional costs for 10 years, producing about 135k worth of power in that timeframe. So while they might not be profitable under current energy prices they most likely will be within 10 years (if current trends continue). Funnily enough if the EU cut all energy subsidiaries to Nuclear power the rise in price would already make them profitable.
Damming rivers is hazardous to the ecology of the river, it isn't completely clean. Many fish populations are affected as well as the flora of the river. Not the best source I know but here it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_turbine#Environmental_impact
|
Well, as it relates to Romney's proposed energy policy, the biggest issue I have is the absence of investment in R&D of renewable sources. Does anyone have an argument as to why we shouldn't invest in this? Just seems extremely short sighted to me.
Sorry if this is OT, I would consider the candidates' policies relevant to the topic though.
|
On August 24 2012 07:11 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 07:05 radiatoren wrote:On August 24 2012 06:14 screamingpalm wrote:
I don't think nuclear power is the answer either, we need to look at sustainability and renewable sources. I think it is pretty clear that this is the future and the GOP's stale and stagnant policy will leave us trailing way behind nations who contiue to develop. Hell, even the Democrats' plans aren't aggressive enough in my opinion. Water turbines are rather exclusive and their level of pollution is not insignificant either. I have no idea what the other things you are talking about mean, so I'll simply assume you are correct, but i honestly don't understand what you mean here. Water turbines are exclusive? Meaning they require Water to run? Is that what you are trying to say? If so I might agree, but what kind of pollution are they supposed to produce? Damming a river and running a turbine doesn't really pollute anything, it might not be possible everywhere but aside from building the plant once no pollution whatsoever will be produced. Wind Turbines as built and used in Austria cost about 150k Euro to build and are expected to run with minimal additional costs for 10 years, producing about 135k worth of power in that timeframe. So while they might not be profitable under current energy prices they most likely will be within 10 years (if current trends continue). Funnily enough if the EU cut all energy subsidiaries to Nuclear power the rise in price would already make them profitable.
Sorry for the confusion! Water turbines are exclusive to running water or water with currents, yes. Pollution is especially from the damiming and a little from producing the turbine.
10 years of production is on the low side for sustainable energy and I do not know how much it pollutes to produce. I assume it is relatively low pollution as with water turbines. It is interesting that wind turbines are worth so much. What are the most favourable conditions for them?
|
Re: sustainability/waste, we only need to use fission until we've developed fusion reactors, which won't produce the uranium/plutonium waste. That won't happen tomorrow, but in the long term I think that's where our energy future lies.
|
On August 24 2012 06:50 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 06:38 Souma wrote:On August 24 2012 06:35 DetriusXii wrote:On August 24 2012 05:34 Souma wrote:On August 24 2012 05:11 DoubleReed wrote:
I've never understood where people have the idea that "life begins at conception." Can someone explain this to me? Because it's an idea that has come about entirely randomly and nonsensically.
The bible actually says life begins at birth, which is later than most people think. So it's not from the bible.
Science if anything tells us that it does not have a nervous system, consciousness, or a brain until much much later into the pregnancy and cannot accurately be described as anything we consider a 'human life.'
So yea. I don't get it. Where did this idea come from exactly? For me it's neither religion nor science. It's the mere fact that once the egg is fertilized, it's going to inevitably (with the exception of complications) become a human being. While it may not be considered 'human life,' it eventually will be. Now while most pro-choice advocates would be satisfied with the knowledge that it is not actual human life, my conscience will always remind me otherwise. It will always remind me that it could have been an individual, standing on its own two feet, and affecting the world in ways that will never be known. So do you get teary eyed for all the potential universes that were destroyed because of the choices you made and because the choices your parents made? I stayed in my office rather than going outside for lunch today. Should I now have to consider the circumstances of the lives that were destroyed because I didn't go outside for lunch today? Here's an analogy to hard drives that could work fairly well. We don't generally mourn over the loss of an empty hard drive for the potential it could have had in holding information. We mourn over the loss of a hard drive that has current information though, like family photos, credit card information, and applications we install. Would you fret over an empty hard drive based on the fact that it could have had information of value to you on it or like most people, do you take it back to the retailer and ask for a refund? Unfortunately for you, you can toss at me all the half-assed analogies you want, it will never be equivalent to the subject at hand. You're not comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing apples to a fucking rock. Teleology is kind of a half-assed ontology though. Sure, it was groundbreaking a couple of millennia ago, but there's been a lot of science and thinking going on since then.
I really don't see anything in souma's post that commits him to teleological ethics (and also don't see why you're calling it an "ontology", or what features of the many different things that have gone by 'teology' you wish to highlight by doing so). He never said that he thinks abortion is wrong because the purpose or end of a fertilized egg is to become a person. He merely said, roughly, that that fact that they will naturally become an adult human qualifies them as such and that that makes it immoral to kill them. I disagree with this, but it really doesn't have to have anything to do with with an ethically or metaphysically loaded teleology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
