• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged nuclear power safe?

Most of the "waste" problem is created by the anti-nuke lobby.

If it wasn't for the anti-nuke groups we'd have reactors that could burn the "waste", we'd be able to reprocess what wasn't burned, and the final real waste products could be mixed with mine tailings, turned into synth-rock and reburried as a perfectly safe, and less radio-active material than the initial ore was.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
I doubt that. Everytime the subject comes up you play the "I'm pro-nuclear" card and the head straight into bashing it.

You've refused to provide the qualifications of your "experts" when asked, even though others have provided theirs. Failing that you retreat into name calling and personal attacks and bizarre logical fallacies (eg. "It's the peoples democratic choice so you can't criticize it!").



You mean that I am downplaying these concerns in the view of the "experts" you refuse to identify? What are you afraid of?




Aaaannnd more name-calling. Nice.
Click to expand...

lies.....

never said you cannot critize it, but you will have to respect it.
thats a difference, i myself have huge critique to the green party in Germany, just phase out without an alternative plan is no solution, but the people in Germany want phase out, so i can respect that. wonder why you cannot.

also we were talking about one expert. i provided his name, and his former job, google if you want to see his qualifications. I take his word over some internet guy on the forum.......

even in the TV debate last night, the CEO of Axpo a nuclear power plant company, they were less downplaying dangers of nuclear power.
even he was far more objective thatn you ever was.

yes i am pro nuclear, it is the best technology we have, but somehow you seem to believe its perfect and has no problems at all. that has been shown to be wrong more than once.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Most of the "waste" problem is created by the anti-nuke lobby.

If it wasn't for the anti-nuke groups we'd have reactors that could burn the "waste", we'd be able to reprocess what wasn't burned, and the final real waste products could be mixed with mine tailings, turned into synth-rock and reburried as a perfectly safe, and less radio-active material than the initial ore was.
Click to expand...

if only the alternatives would get so much credit for future possible developements like you give to nuclear technology.
 
DC said:
lies.....

never said you cannot critize it, but you will have to respect it.
thats a difference, i myself have huge critique to the green party in Germany, just phase out without an alternative plan is no solution, but the people in Germany want phase out, so i can respect that. wonder why you cannot.

also we were talking about one expert. i provided his name, and his former job, google if you want to see his qualifications. I take his word over some internet guy on the forum.......

even in the TV debate last night, the CEO of Axpo a nuclear power plant company, they were less downplaying dangers of nuclear power.
even he was far more objective thatn you ever was.

yes i am pro nuclear, it is the best technology we have, but somehow you seem to believe its perfect and has no problems at all. that has been shown to be wrong more than once.
Click to expand...



DC, with all due respect, you accused a poster here of making things up, when they posted quotes from the International Atomic Energy Agency complete with a link.

You've demonstrated zero ability to think about this topic rationally at all. Do you seriously think anyone you have cited is in a better position to draw conclusions about the nuclear danger than the world body responsible for drawing conclusions about the nuclear danger?
 
gumboot said:
DC, with all due respect, you accused a poster here of making things up, when they posted quotes from the International Atomic Energy Agency complete with a link.

You've demonstrated zero ability to think about this topic rationally at all. Do you seriously think anyone you have cited is in a better position to draw conclusions about the nuclear danger than the world body responsible for drawing conclusions about the nuclear danger?
Click to expand...

please what link? the one i accused of making things up, did NOT provide any link. and where can i find that link to the IAEA that confirms that they did not vent the building to prevent fearmongering?
 
DC said:
never said you cannot critize it, but you will have to respect it.
Click to expand...

No, I don't. It's an ignorant, childish stupid and self-righteous decision and the german people are going to make more than just themselves pay the price for it. I can't respect it.

also we were talking about one expert. i provided his name, and his former job, google if you want to see his qualifications. I take his word
Click to expand...

Yep.

DC said:
yes i am pro nuclear,
Click to expand...

No, you are not.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
No, I don't. It's an ignorant, childish stupid and self-righteous decision and the german people are going to make more than just themselves pay the price for it. I can't respect it.



Yep.



No, you are not.
Click to expand...

They don't want it, and they are free do not want it. They will have to life with the consequences or come up with alternatives.

Nuclear Energy has a risk, and some people are not willing to take that risk.

and yes i am pro nuclear energy, i voted pro. and also now i do not support the idea of just turning them off as some opponents demand. We have one plant that needs to be looked at closely now, its close to a dam.

But i am still pro nuclear, we have no alternative atm, when there is a better solution than Nuclear, i will switch, but so far it is the best we have, but it has risks and problems. and i just refuse to downplay them like you want me to. I am not working for the Nuclear Industry.
 
Redtail said:
Magnets? How the (bleep) would they work?
Click to expand...

As Deepak Chopra taught us, quantum mechanics means anything can happen at any time for no reason.*

Ergo, magnets would work.

Futurama, in case you're wondering
 
Last edited:
DC said:
if only the alternatives would get so much credit for future possible developements like you give to nuclear technology.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about "future possible developements", I was talking about reactors that have been tested and we know work, but due to the anti-nuke lobby have never been able to get the funding to replace the older light water reactors that do have serious issues.

The alternatives are often far from nice, just the waste products from solar and coal alone are poisoning our environment more than nuke ever has, even with the Chernobyl accident, and worse, while nuclear polution will decay over time (with the worst stuff decaying very quickly) toxic chemicals never do.
 
PhantomWolf said:
I wasn't talking about "future possible developements", I was talking about reactors that have been tested and we know work, but due to the anti-nuke lobby have never been able to get the funding to replace the older light water reactors that do have serious issues.

The alternatives are often far from nice, just the waste products from solar and coal alone are poisoning our environment more than nuke ever has, even with the Chernobyl accident, and worse, while nuclear polution will decay over time (with the worst stuff decaying very quickly) toxic chemicals never do.
Click to expand...

wtf? Coal? coal is not an alternative.......

and waste in China? no way, in China? i am shocked really...... such things can be minimised with proper laws.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Coal is nuclear?



So solar panels made elsewhere don't use the same materials?
Click to expand...

considering the output of coalplants, yes we could say coal is nuclear.
but coal is sure not an alternative to anything.

Impact from solarpanel production can be minimized with proper laws.

and its not like nuclear energy doesnt need huge mining efforts and other materials. that also leave behind waste.
 
gumboot said:
DC, with all due respect, you accused a poster here of making things up, when they posted quotes from the International Atomic Energy Agency complete with a link.

You've demonstrated zero ability to think about this topic rationally at all. Do you seriously think anyone you have cited is in a better position to draw conclusions about the nuclear danger than the world body responsible for drawing conclusions about the nuclear danger?
Click to expand...

where is that link you were talking about?
 
DC said:
if only the alternatives would get so much credit for future possible developements like you give to nuclear technology.
Click to expand...

There are no future developments which will do away with renewables crippling limitations. "Alternatives" simply do not have the density and capacity to compete with fossil fuels and nuclear. You cannot make the sun stay in the sky, nor can you make it shine harder on a given peice of earth. You cannot make the wind blow faster and more consistently either.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
There are no future developments which will do away with renewables crippling limitations. "Alternatives" simply do not have the density and capacity to compete with fossil fuels and nuclear. You cannot make the sun stay in the sky, nor can you make it shine harder on a given peice of earth. You cannot make the wind blow faster and more consistently either.
Click to expand...

i never claimed so. nice strawmen you have there. have fun playing with them............

but as has been shown with solar panels for example, there is still room to improve them greatly.
 
DC said:
Impact from solarpanel production can be minimized with proper laws.

and its not like nuclear energy doesnt need huge mining efforts and other materials. that also leave behind waste.
Click to expand...

The worlds largest solar plant in Gujarat India covers 58 square miles and has a peak capacity of 3,000 MW.

North Americas reactor facility in Bruce County Ontario covers 5 or 6 square miles and has a capacity of 6,000 MW.

On a sunny day in India, Gujarat will produce 24,000 megawatt hours of electricity.

On a cloudy winters day in Canada, Bruce will crank out 144,000 MW.

Six times the energy on one tenth the land area. You will never make up that difference.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
There are no future developments which will do away with renewables crippling limitations. "Alternatives" simply do not have the density and capacity to compete with fossil fuels and nuclear. You cannot make the sun stay in the sky, nor can you make it shine harder on a given peice of earth. You cannot make the wind blow faster and more consistently either.
Click to expand...

and fossilfuels are not a way to go, considering AGW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom