Tracking Earth's Future via Current Events, etc.

[Annoyed]

You guys all bring very good points, but let me make mine clear. FH's bolded line above summarize why I'm against any further nuclear power-plants projects. First, I do agree that nuclear in theory is a clean way to generate power, I'm not asking to get rid of it right here right now, but rather put a veto on any new plants projects and gradually get rid of it and decommission every plant there is on our planet in the years to come.

Here's the hiccup, it takes one major event such as a tornado or high tide to cause a catastrophe. Human error is most likely never going to be an issue again, Chernobyl really was a stupid move from a scientist and the facility didn't have adequate safety measures which has been resolved since then, but Fukoshima just goes to show how little control we actually have over this powerful energy generation process. Nuclear power generation is a Russian roulette game.

Two aspects I base my opinion on. First, the plant itself. If it gets struck or damaged by whatever natural phenomenon that are becoming custom AND random due to CC the core can go into meltdown and explode, releasing mushroom clouds of radioactive material in the atmosphere that doesn't really leave our planet but gets carried with the wind. If we're lucky the clouds remain in an inhabited area, if not it gets stuck in the clouds and falls on our heads when rain comes. Also when that happens, radioactive material is leaked via the water reservoirs used to cool the plant off and that water gets released into the environment when the shielding breaks off, destroying its immediate surrounding wildlife and fauna.

Second, the nuclear trash graveyards called coffins are located on the surface, kind of a pit that's dug and covered with concrete or other types of mantle to shield it from the rain. But here's the thing, it's been heavily documented that those coffins never last as long as advertised by the contractors and are prone to leakage. If you don't believe this just do a bit of research and you'll see tons of reports of scientists reporting high concentration of radioactive materials in the waters and soils surrounding those coffins. This water eventually gets mixed with ground water, and falls down into the main channels which might end up in your drinking water and also kills fishes and other species (or you get a 3 eyed fish like in the Simpsons). Those graveyards needs to remain there for THOUSANDS of years, do you guys honestly believe that we can ensure its proper maintenance over thousands of years? What if an idiot politician, say Trump, shows up and decides he doesn't want to invest in that anymore because he doesn't believe in the environment?

We are way over our heads with this. Nuclear should never be considered as an alternative or a transitional energy production, it served its purpose for a time and now we have countless of different means to achieve energy production, there is no need to build any more plants or renew those currently in place.

First, don't build nuke plants in stupid places. Take New Orleans, for example. A Hurricane clobbered that region in 2005? I think it was. That region is below sea level and in hurricane alley. It's only a matter of time before it gets clobbered again.
It was stupid to rebuild after Katrina, and it would be stupid to put a nuke plant there, or in any risky location.

We've also had the capability to launch nuclear waste into the sun for quite some time, and with the growth of private space travel, that is becoming more and more economical. I don't see anyone advocating that.

Until something better comes down the pipe as technology naturally progresses, nuclear is the best option we have.
But the enviros, through the courts, have made construction prohibitively expensive, and they fight it tooth and nail wherever they can.

I know, you're not going to pay attention to this idea, but consider. They also oppose hydro in most locations on environmental grounds too. Think about it for a minute. Is there ANY energy generation technology that they do support?

No.

All of their ideas involve strangling the US's energy supply or raising its cost by a large margin, which is guaranteed to tank our economy. Our economy runs on energy. Going back to the first oil embargoes in the 1970's, how many of our recessions have been triggered by energy shortages or cost spikes?

Looking at their behavior, their motive is clear; it is as much to strangle the US economy as it is concern for the environment, if not more.

This is something that you younger folks don't see. You haven't been taught to assume that you aren't getting the whole story and to figure things out for yourselves. If some talking head in media doesn't tell you something, you don't accept it. But you have been trained to swallow whatever the media feeds you without looking at things yourself to see if it makes sense.

[Gatefan1976]

First, don't build nuke plants in stupid places. Take New Orleans, for example. A Hurricane clobbered that region in 2005? I think it was. That region is below sea level and in hurricane alley. It's only a matter of time before it gets clobbered again.
It was stupid to rebuild after Katrina, and it would be stupid to put a nuke plant there, or in any risky location.

Here you tackle two separate issues.
I agree with you that to build alternate energy, you absolutely must consider the issues of the area in which you are building.
It's also why I disagree with the "XYZ is not viable because it does not work here" argument.
Tailor make alternate energy, because right now, we have no perfect solution, but we DO have a path forwards. Electric cars and busses who are fuelled on the coast by wind, in the heartland by nuclear, and in the desserts by solar.
All of these options reduce CO2 output, but are viable in their area's.
There is no perfect "fix" yet.

We've also had the capability to launch nuclear waste into the sun for quite some time, and with the growth of private space travel, that is becoming more and more economical. I don't see anyone advocating that.

Barring screwing up the sun, I'd be fine with it. I don't know the science, but I would think it would be burned of before it could do any damage.

Until something better comes down the pipe as technology naturally progresses, nuclear is the best option we have.

It's a stop gap, like coal and petroleum.

But the enviros, through the courts, have made construction prohibitively expensive, and they fight it tooth and nail wherever they can.

It's not the enviro's, it's the coal and petrol companies.
You give enviro's far to much credit. They don't have the money to fight, they rely on actions.

I know, you're not going to pay attention to this idea, but consider. They also oppose hydro in most locations on environmental grounds too. Think about it for a minute. Is there ANY energy generation technology that they do support?

All energy generation must be considered under a cost analysis.
When you were hooning around in your 500HP car at 35c a gallon, it wasn't.
We need to pay for that decision now.

All of their ideas involve strangling the US's energy supply or raising its cost by a large margin, which is guaranteed to tank our economy. Our economy runs on energy. Going back to the first oil embargoes in the 1970's, how many of our recessions have been triggered by energy shortages or cost spikes?

I need a porta potty, cause this is rife with uneducated, ignorant ****.

Looking at their behavior, their motive is clear; it is as much to strangle the US economy as it is concern for the environment, if not more.

We are gonna need a bigger boat.

This is something that you younger folks don't see. You haven't been taught to assume that you aren't getting the whole story and to figure things out for yourselves. If some talking head in media doesn't tell you something, you don't accept it. But you have been trained to swallow whatever the media feeds you without looking at things yourself to see if it makes sense.

This is laughable, truly LAUGHABLE.
No, it's pathetic.

[Annoyed]

Here you tackle two separate issues.
I agree with you that to build alternate energy, you absolutely must consider the issues of the area in which you are building.
It's also why I disagree with the "XYZ is not viable because it does not work here" argument.
Tailor make alternate energy, because right now, we have no perfect solution, but we DO have a path forwards. Electric cars and busses who are fuelled on the coast by wind, in the heartland by nuclear, and in the desserts by solar.
All of these options reduce CO2 output, but are viable in their area's.
There is no perfect "fix" yet.

Barring screwing up the sun, I'd be fine with it. I don't know the science, but I would think it would be burned of before it could do any damage.

It's a stop gap, like coal and petroleum.

It's not the enviro's, it's the coal and petrol companies.
You give enviro's far to much credit. They don't have the money to fight, they rely on actions.

All energy generation must be considered under a cost analysis.
When you were hooning around in your 500HP car at 35c a gallon, it wasn't.
We need to pay for that decision now.

I need a porta potty, cause this is rife with uneducated, ignorant ****.

We are gonna need a bigger boat.

This is laughable, truly LAUGHABLE.
No, it's pathetic.

You ignored the most important point of my post. Tell me what technology the enviros advocate for INCREASING our available energy supply? If they have a practical idea to increase the supply of energy, better and faster than what we have today, pray tell, what is it?

The only ideas they have involve restricting energy use, usually by increasing its cost so that only the well off can afford to use it, and damaging our economy.

What is their idea for a clean energy source that can replace what we have?

[Chaka-Z0]

You ignored the most important point of my post. Tell me what technology the enviros advocate for INCREASING our available energy supply? If they have a practical idea to increase the supply of energy, better and faster than what we have today, pray tell, what is it?

The only ideas they have involve restricting energy use, usually by increasing its cost so that only the well off can afford to use it, and damaging our economy.

What is their idea for a clean energy source that can replace what we have?

We've told you already but it doesn't sink in, it's about diversification, slowly changing our habits to trade polluting tech for eco-friendly tech such as solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, capturing ocean waves to generate electricity. The US has many miles of coastline, why not use it? There's literally no reason to still use coal plants as we've got many less-polluting tech available right now.

[jelgate]

Because he only cares about the politics. Science is rejected when some political group is profiting

[Annoyed]

We've told you already but it doesn't sink in, it's about diversification, slowly changing our habits to trade polluting tech for eco-friendly tech such as solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, capturing ocean waves to generate electricity. The US has many miles of coastline, why not use it? There's literally no reason to still use coal plants as we've got many less-polluting tech available right now.

But the thing you ignore is that at this time, we don't have an on the shelf alternative. Hydro is fine, well proven, but many object to it on various environmental grounds. And I'm sure you would have many people objecting to wave generation due to ecological effects also.

Again, Suggest a reliable source that can just take the place of what we have already. You can't, because it doesn't yet exist.

[jelgate]

You completely ignored Chaka and GF's point for another emotional rant

[Annoyed]

You completely ignored Chaka and GF's point for another emotional rant

It's not an emotional rant, is based on facts. We do not yet have anything that can take the place of what we have now, particularly for mobile use.

[jelgate]

I call BS. You wouldn't know a fact if it hit you on the head. Its just rant against environmentalists while ignoring the point of spreading out alternative fuels based on geography

[Annoyed]

I call BS. You wouldn't know a fact if it hit you on the head. Its just rant against environmentalists while ignoring the point of spreading out alternative fuels based on geography

Than answer the question. What do we have on the shelf that can take the place of what we have now, particularly for mobile use?

Answer: Nothing. Because we have nothing that can match the energy density of petroleum.

[Gatefan1976]

Than answer the question. What do we have on the shelf that can take the place of what we have now, particularly for mobile use?

It's not about it "being on the shelf", it's what we can develop.
For thousands of years we had nothing better than rocks to fight with, then we had powered spears, then bows, then crossbows, then muskets, then, and then, and then.
Oh, and before you say "but we had swords, spears, axes and knives", they are not mobile, they require you to be where you want to be, so it's -entirely apples to apples-.

Answer: Nothing. Because we have nothing that can match the energy density of petroleum.

Get back on your horse and live the Amish life then, because we once believed that nothing would be more efficient than a horse. Once more, before you launch into a pseudoscientific rant, it's not about energy density, it's about what is the least damaging way to produce energy. I lay solar panels across Utah or Arizona, I can fuel your power grid less efficiently, but more cleanly than the max output of petroleum ever could, and petroleum is a limited resource, Solar radiation has been around for a lot longer, we just did not know how to harness it.
You are looking for a -permanent- solution, and that's the wrong way to think, what is the BETTER solution with what we know and will drive innovation is the better way to think.
Think beyond your box Annoyed, I gave you all the answers you needed, the world works on co-operation, people operate on competition, collectives work on greed.
In ST:TOS, they thought they had ALL the tech down pat, TNG shows us that they had not. Sooner or later we all become TOS, but where we need to be is TNG, and as they become the TOS, we need the next TNG.
That's the reality of the world.
It's cyclical in nature because the beings that dominate the world are.

[Gatefan1976]

It's not an emotional rant, is based on facts. We do not yet have anything that can take the place of what we have now, particularly for mobile use.

We have electric cars that can travel with a daily range of 300 miles on a overnight charge, It's not useful for all, but it is useful for most. The cost issue is a separate argument.
What you really mean is convenient, and you grew up in the age of expanding convenience.

[Annoyed]

It's not about it "being on the shelf", it's what we can develop.

That is the only important sentence in your post.
Eventually, we will have better sources "on the shelf". But until we do, its rather boneheaded to try to force people to use immature tech.

[Annoyed]

We have electric cars that can travel with a daily range of 300 miles on a overnight charge, It's not useful for all, but it is useful for most. The cost issue is a separate argument.
What you really mean is convenient, and you grew up in the age of expanding convenience.

Haven't there been studies that show that if you take all the losses such as transmission, manufacture & such into account, electric vehicles actually use more energy than gasoline powered vehicles do?

[Chaka-Z0]

Haven't there been studies that show that if you take all the losses such as transmission, manufacture & such into account, electric vehicles actually use more energy than gasoline powered vehicles do?

Yes, in a horizon of somewhere around 10 years if memory serves. After that the electric car uses less, which is why it's important to get as many people to replace their gasoline car asap. Also no c02 emissions.