|
||||
|
Title: 20 years ago today... Post by Paul98 on Apr 26th, 2006, 9:40am Geiger counters across Europe started rising above backround. It was a early warning to what was about to unfold to the world. Chernobyl! http://news.ft.com/cms/s/e9db721e-d467-11da-a357-0000779e2340.html In lieu of rising energy costs, do you think the US should move toward more use of nuclear generated power? -P. |
||||
|
Title: Re: 20 years ago today... Post by fubar on Apr 26th, 2006, 10:16am Nuclear is the new green energy. Sure, it's a glowing green, but it's green. |
||||
|
Title: Re: 20 years ago today... Post by Ueli on Apr 26th, 2006, 11:04am Of course, nuclear generated power is today the only reasonable choice. But I can't see any connection with the Chernobyl accident. It's only the fucking green tree huggers (that can't see the difference between the peaceful use of nuclear energy and the bomb business) that try to make Chernobyl into an accident in a nuclear power station. For them every twisting of facts is justified if it helps to reach their "noble" goal. But Chernobyl was clearly a military installation, with the sole purpose to produce weapon grade Plutonium. No scientist or engineer is going to build a graphite moderated reactor if the only intent is to produce heat for a steam turbine. Ueli [smiley=smokin.gif] |
||||
|
Title: Re: 20 years ago today... Post by Dragnlance on Apr 26th, 2006, 11:15am Living on the Front Range of the Rockies, the windyest country in the US, I say, Wind Power. We need more wind farms |
||||
|
Title: Re: 20 years ago today... Post by imnotbub on Apr 26th, 2006, 11:26am I like the Ethenol route. We grow mucho corn here, so if we can use it to lessen the burden of oil dependance, that would be a good thing. It's better than subsidizing the farmers to cut production. Steve |
||||
|
Title: Re: 20 years ago today... Post by karma on Apr 26th, 2006, 11:31am Quote:
It is a choice not the only choice. Until the waste disposal problem is sorted out it will coninue to have serious drawbacks. Coal, Wind, Hydro, tidal, Solar and nuclear are all reasonable choices but one choice will not fit all. Quote:
A nuclear accident is a serious problem no matter what the use of the plant is. I happened to be very near the three mile Island facility when it was at risk of a meltdown. That was no weapons factory and was some kind of scary. |
||||
|
Title: Re: 20 years ago today... Post by Rock_Lobster on Apr 26th, 2006, 11:33am on 04/26/06 at 11:04:20, Ueli wrote:
Agreed. A shame we are perhaps 15+ years away from having a new reactor go online in the US. |
||||
|
Title: Re: 20 years ago today... Post by fubar on Apr 26th, 2006, 11:35am There are safer methods to produce controlled nuclear reactions that have no possibility of Chernobyl-style disasters. While not all of the problems associated with nuclear energy production and waste have been completely solved, it looks very promising. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor |
||||
|
Title: Re: 20 years ago today... Post by Ueli on Apr 26th, 2006, 3:18pm on 04/26/06 at 11:31:04, karma wrote:
Nuclear waste disposal is purely a political issue, exaggerated to a problem by the red-green activists. Technically it is easy to solve. on 04/26/06 at 11:31:04, karma wrote:
Coal has it's place in steel smelting. But recommending it for heat production is a crime against future generations. The by-products of green-house effect enhancing carbon dioxide, acid rain and dust are so bad that every coal fired power plant should be shut down immediately! There is only one fuel worse than coal: lignite. Wind, tidal, Solar Energy generation have as serious drawback the intermittent availability. Who wants to work 12 hours on a sunny day and get in compensation time off on rainy days? Storing electric energy in an accumulator is only practicable on a small scale, hardly feasible for bring excess solar energy from summer to winter. A pumped storage power station would be a good alternative, but, at least in our country, the loudest opposition against any new storage dam comes from folks raving most ardently about solar energy. Hydroelectric generation has almost noting but merits. But there are not many suitable sites left. Who would trade in the draining of the Niagara Falls to spare us from one more nuclear power station? Ueli [smiley=smokin.gif] |
||||
|
Title: Re: 20 years ago today... Post by Jonny on Apr 26th, 2006, 4:37pm Knowing a little bit about Ueli's back ground....Im with him on this one! |
||||
|
Title: Re: 20 years ago today... Post by zwibbs/Scott on Apr 26th, 2006, 4:39pm Yeah me too---I agree with Ueli ! |
||||
|
Title: Re: 20 years ago today... Post by tanner on Apr 26th, 2006, 5:43pm Jumpin on Ueli's bandwagon, http://www.picpop.com/gallery/albums/userpics/Bandwagon/bandwagon.jpg cuz i hate to be wrong......tim |
||||
|
Title: Re: 20 years ago today... Post by Charlie on Apr 27th, 2006, 2:14am I'm with Ueli. Nukes work in upstate NY but because they do, they never make the news. The French, your favorite target kids, get something like 75% of their power from nukes they like it. http://www.netsync.net/users/charlies/gifs/Mondeiu Smiley.gif Of course Niagara Falls isn't all that far from me. It's so successful that they shut off part of the American Falls now and then to reconstruct and keep things going...and for cosmetic reasons. Too bad the town is deserted except for the new Seneca Nation Casino. We have a coal fired plant here though. It's damned near impossible to replace it because Jamestowners have about the cheapest electric rates in the country. Hard to imagine lignite today, Ueli Charlie |
||||
|
Title: Re: 20 years ago today... Post by BobG on Apr 27th, 2006, 4:16am Quote:
Nope. In Nevada it is a personal issue. Yucca Mt depository is being built by scam artists, idiot bureaucrats, stupid scientists, liars and money grubbing butt holes from outside the state of Nevada. The state of Nevada has no nuclear plants of any kind. The state of Nevada receives no, nada, zero, zip electric power produced by nuclear plants. The state of Nevada has never made one dime of profit from the nuclear industry. The rest of the country is a far different story. The people of almost every other state profit from nuclear energy. Money for engineering, money for land, money from materials, money from labor, money from taxes. The list could go on for ever. Then when plants need to dispose of the waste from the product they profited from what do they want to do with it? “Not in my backyard” they scream. Send it to that waste land called Nevada. Well I say Fuck You to anyone and everyone that advocates nuclear power until they are willing to store their own waste. They can all freeze in the fucking dark for all I care! |
||||
|
Title: Re: 20 years ago today... Post by LeLimey on Apr 27th, 2006, 4:37am I know hydro electric power and wind farms aren't possible everywhere but I do think they should be used where possible (read feasible not just installable!) As should solar power. If they were used in the places with the weather conditions to get the best out of them it would be better for everyone. Last time I drove through Europe I saw many many wind farms and I have to say I think they are beautiful as well as practical. Ido like the idea of harnessing natural forces where possible but I can quite accept that it just isn't an option for everywhere. |
||||
|
Title: Re: 20 years ago today... Post by Jasmyn on Apr 27th, 2006, 5:18am In SA we have coal, hydro and nuclear generated power and hopefully your political environment will be able to support a safer nuclear industry? From: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060410&s=hammer041006 Quote:
BTW: I am a tree hugger ;) |
||||
|
Clusterheadaches.com Message Board » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1! YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved. |