Nuclear Power Debate

Yes, hydro is very dependent on geography and climate as per my post. However what my.point was trying to say is green power isnt useless as ones like hydro can ha e very little impact. The BC, canada is a fantastic example because the biggest conplaints are about fish migration, limited number of human relocaion and artifacts. The latter not important, the former 2 actually important but when compared are far less devastating compared to others. Only trying to point out that anti green energy conversations ar as flawed as anti nuclear.

However the statement that only people care about radiation poisoning and animals seem fine is beyond words…so much could be said on that, but no point as its so far from rational thought, sorry bro.

If waste was so safe and easy to deal with, why is it taking so long to find a permanently safe sollution? Burrying it until the next fuggery seems like apretty human half ass fix. The spce one seems about as good as it gets, until a rocket falls. But will probably be the best i would agree.

Why is it taking so long? A combination of politics, NIMBY, and unwillingness to do anything with them except throw them away (you could reprocess the stuff and keep using it until it becomes less and less radioactive).

You have to realize the problem with nuclear energy is NOT technical, it’s political.

It’s largely political as @Taiwan_Luthiers stated. Space isn’t a good option. Rockets are too unreliable. Burying it deeper and deeper in seabed clay for millions of years is the best burial option, but frankly, the future will probably have good use for it. The quantity of waste is minuscule, so no real harm in keeping it around the reactors or some unused land until it’s wanted. It’s very safe in containment caskets.

I’m PM you some reading material.

Thanks for the message.

Pergaps i should clarify my stance. I am not anti nuclear based on science. Well.sort of because geographic and climatic events are not yet predicable. But aside from reality, i am all for nuclear.

Note, when.i see or hear someone say its a political issue, this avsolutely means its a human issue. And again, hence why i am against nuclear.

ESPECIALLY in a country like taiwan that is:

A) corrupt as fuck
B) lazy as fuck
C) copycat as fuck (sorry had to, but its true haha)
D) lacking diligence on an epic scale (related to a, b and c)
E) geographically active as fuck
F) climatically actuve as fuck
G) lacking any kind of long term (moral) plan. Not sure how to fit fuck into this one, so just…oh fuck :frowning:

You know why people say nuclear is good for taiwan? Because taiwan isnt psychotic and itching to start WW3 as well as the rest of the planet still needs its middle man status so they can buy cheap shit, high tek shit all the while pretending they are supporting a good morally grounded democracy.

But hey, legally ethnic aboriginals on orchid island get free electricity, so its all good. Hurrah for short sightedness! Yay! Lets try and put more sodium in our food and discuss healthy kidneys tomorrow.

Edit. I might be eating my words, havent seen copycats book titles yet. looking forward to them! But as a note, im not anti nuclear, just anti idiot. If i am the idiot i am absolutely happy to be wrong and see a better future.

2 Likes

If your words are cooked in the south, bring extra salt; pretty tasteless down here :frowning:

edit: the food is tasteless, not making a play on words there, just with eating, your post was in fine taste as far as I’m concerned, and now i’m confusing myself even. anyways, clear stance on your part, bad food down here.

Well having the world’s largest coal plant isn’t the answer either.

Because honestly more people probably ends up hurt from all those coal ash released into the air than a tiny amount of nuclear material that is kept in a secure location. It’s only politics that kept it from going anywhere.

And I don’t understand why DPP is so against it, considering that having nuclear plants means a means of keeping China away.

This is my issue with people that debate “green” energy. Its an all or nothing game which is hypocritical given that many power grids are supplied by multiple sources such as nuclear, oil, coal, hydro etc. So its already a Heinz 51 kinda deal. When people discuss sustainable/clean/safe power sources (almost always avoiding hydro cause they cant deny its green and effective) solar, wind etc become a scape goat in claims like it doesnt 100% get rid of coal, kills fish, birds, bugs or some such nonsense. Improvements are made incrementally, not zero to 100 overnight. If flooding a river and killing some birds were such big priorities, people would waste less energy. In reality, people hardly know how to turn the lights off when leaving a room or close the door when the ac is on… The argument compared to other sources (tar sands, alberta, as an example) bitch slaps far more birds than any wind farm could. And i have driven around the windfarms, including experimental ones, for 2 decades in alberta…to all the anti wind folks out there, clean house before hating.

Sustainable, clean, safe, renewable etc should be things all humans strive for. not get upset about because its not santa bringing heaven in a gift basket for us all to enjoy until inifinty.

Oil and coal power is total shit. Should be replaced. Being against nuclear doesn’t by proxy make one pro coal. Though that is a popular argument here for some strange reason.

Nuclear is like a persons freedom. Not a problem until its a problem. And no one wants to be real about dealing with our shit after enjoying the benefits.

Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal are location specific, but together can almost certainly replace above 2 in the not so distant future. And the next time someone mentions hydro power and killing salmon, i will start posting reef deaths and mutant frogs.

1 Like

Australia is the only country in the OECD that has nuclear power outlawed. Also while having a third of the world’s uranium deposits and sending it off to China instead. Then we have vast empty tracts natural disaster free land to build the plants, and barren desert to bury the waste. Maybe we can buy Taiwan’s waste
I dunno why it’s never gained any traction here. There’s always a little talk of it but nothing ever happens. I think also having plenty of cheap coal and natural gas as well was the reason no one bothered originally.

1 Like

Realistically, though, those vast barren deserts would also be ideal for solar installations. All you have to do is pay someone to walk around with a squeegee once a day.

Or build robots to do it.

Who’s going to clean the dust out of the robots, though? :slight_smile:

These guys are self-cleaning:

1 Like

Or do both. Sell the extra energy or use it to do physics experiments. Use it to turn the barren wasteland into utopia.

We are at a major roadblock in theoretical science because we lack the sufficient energy.

Exactly.

It did occur to me that the shading created by solar panels might modify the local climate enough to allow vegetation to thrive. Not sure if that would be offset by the heat gain effect.

How do I patent solar panel wipers

IIRC it’s already been done. The problem is that panels are so cheap these days that any little gadgets you add to them are expensive in proportion, so it’s quite a hard sell. Even the rails and posts that they sit on account for a significant fraction of the cost of a solar installation.

Nuclear power is always going to be in the extremely harmful category, no matter how unlikely an accident involving it may be.

Fossil fuels pose substantial risks if exploited without discretion or mitigation. Even so,that hazard is both diffuse, and reversible in a human lifetime.

I favor solar over wind. Battery tech and super / ultra capacitor tech has blossomed in the last 5 years. Also, the energy density of the sun.

Just a few months ago, a tech incubator in my home city awarded quite a prize to a venture that demonstrated 20% efficiency gains in solar modules through the use of a coating that down-converts UV rays into usable light for photovoltaics.

Nuclear could easily replace fossil fuel energy generation, but it is not a quick fix. It’s universal adoption should be as monumental as the hazards involved.

Ultimately we need to reduce or energy requirements or arrest them at some set point. This means upsetting lots of economics majors and ending our cancerous population growth. This means education.

1 Like

That pic is missing most squares power source as well as s pelling nuclear wrong. This might hurt your cause rather than help it hehe. And im no stickler for spelling and typos

1 Like

No worries, it was just meant as flavor a la Dubya.

The intention was rather to intro very basic risk assessment.

Thankfully this conversation is not exactly driving policy.

What? That’s never gonna happen except through improvements in efficiency. The continued exponential growth of energy use is a given as technology progresses.

That’s precautionary principle nonsense. Instead, probabilistic risk assessment should be used. Continued use of fossil fuels will surely cause more human and environmental harm than nuclear energy. Chernobyl could never happen again and Fukushima, itself a very rare event, was a big nothing burger fueled by F(m)UD that would have been prevented if PRA reports hadn’t been ignored.

https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/risk-informed/pra.html