Originally posted by RagnorakI disagree with anything so potentially explosive being in the hands of the market.
Are you pro nuclear energy, or against it.
Please elaborate.
D
I also disagree with any power supply being privatised, but that's mute to this point.
I have never heard a proper answer what happens to nuclear wastage. I've heard rumours it gets shipped off to third world countries that dispose of it causing health risks for their own population (again private companies, who's owners probably don't live anywhere near the scene d'crime).
So, I'd be for nuclear fuel if it was nationalised and they came up with a proper way to deal with the waste.
Originally posted by RagnorakI'm not against nuclear energy in itself, but I am against it being used by human beings, because it is too dangerous to be entrusted to their stupid, greedy hands. Currently suspected sabotage at South Africa's only nuclear reactor is cocking up the entire energy grid...Not to mention waste disposal management.
Are you pro nuclear energy, or against it.
Originally posted by shavixmirA nuclear power plant cannot explode.
I disagree with anything so potentially explosive being in the hands of the market.
I also disagree with any power supply being privatised, but that's mute to this point.
I have never heard a proper answer what happens to nuclear wastage. I've heard rumours it gets shipped off to third world countries that dispose of it causing health risks for their ear fuel if it was nationalised and they came up with a proper way to deal with the waste.
IMO it's great, the problem with hydrogen cars is the cost of hydrogen, it requires electricity to seperate the water. Cheap electricity moves these vehicles a step closer.
Originally posted by RochadeHaha, you've been reading too much green propaganda! The cost and the amount of energy obtained from these sources simply are not sufficient.
NO i am against it.
Sun, wind, tidal energy is the future.
Nuclear energy only for interstellar travel.
Nuclear energy may not the most endearing idea to the public, but it certainly one of the best ways to solve the country's energy needs at the current time. Nuclear power plants are very safe, and produce great amounts of energy. It's certainly better than belching out huge amounts of carbon dioxide and other waste gases by burning fossil fuels...
Originally posted by WajomaThey may not explode...but they can leak...meltdown...whatever...
A nuclear power plant cannot explode.
IMO it's great, the problem with hydrogen cars is the cost of hydrogen, it requires electricity to seperate the water. Cheap electricity moves these vehicles a step closer.
That's what I'm on about...
Wajoma, Welshsarnie what do you think about thousands of tons of toxic waste being in concrete chambers for over 250,000 years?
Especially considering, its private corporations who are entrusted in properly disposing of this waste, I think its scary.
Think about it. The sole responsibility of a corporation is to make profit. What better way to make profit than to ship nuclear waste (and all other waste) to developing countries where safety regulations are severely lax.
Just think, for 250,000 years, there will be thousands of tonnes accumulating and accumulating in dodgily built chambers just waiting for an earthquake or some other natural occurance. Remember this radioactive waste is seriously dangerous in even microscopic amounts.
Had ye thought about this, or are ye not overly worried about it?
D
Originally posted by RagnorakI am pro-nuclear energy if it is well managed. It is clearly hard for the world powers to keep the technology under wraps and to allow people to have nuclear energy but not nuclear wepons. Waste disposal is another big problem which though posible to solve is much cheaper to avoid.
Are you pro nuclear energy, or against it.
Please elaborate.
D
However Nulcear power is not the only option and should not always be the first. Where I come from (Zambia) we rely entirely on Hydro power and we have many more suitable sites to create more dams for hydro power and that should be exploited first.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIMO, dams should be towards the bottom of the list of utilised power sources. The destruction of habitat is absolutely enormous. And the destruction of natural wonders is just as bad.
I am pro-nuclear energy if it is well managed. It is clearly hard for the world powers to keep the technology under wraps and to allow people to have nuclear energy but not nuclear wepons. Waste disposal is another big problem which though posible to solve is much cheaper to avoid.
However Nulcear power is not the only option and should not always be the ...[text shortened]... many more suitable sites to create more dams for hydro power and that should be exploited first.
How could nuclear energy ever be well managed when it is in the hands of corporations who are only interested in profit?
D
Originally posted by RagnorakTo expand on this, we can't expect corporations to treat nuclear waste with the respect it absolutely requires when people like ex US Secretary of Treasury, and world bank chief economist, Lawrence Summers, has this to say:
Wajoma, Welshsarnie what do you think about thousands of tons of toxic waste being in concrete chambers for over 250,000 years?
Especially considering, its private corporations who are entrusted in properly disposing of this waste, I think its scary.
Think about it. The sole responsibility of a corporation is to make profit. What better way to make ...[text shortened]... n microscopic amounts.
Had ye thought about this, or are ye not overly worried about it?
D
"Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Less Developed Countries]? I can think of three reasons:
1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.
2) [SNIP]I've always though that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste.
"
http://www.whirledbank.org/ourwords/summers.html
This guy has won the highest accolades given to economists. He's current president of Harvard, and his ideas are thought in economic schools around the world.
D
problems with hydro as china is finding out with the yangste river damming is the inordinate amount of environmental damage it inflicts as well as the way it accelarates extinction of species and erodes bio-diversity.
chernobyl and mount st helens are reminders that we cant take nuclear for granted, but most of the g8 countries have been running nuclear incident free for for a few decades and france and GB both rely heavily on its use.
there was this aussie guy who developed a synthetic rock appropriately called synroc, designed to 'safely' store high level nuclear waste way back in 1975. As this process is regarded as working best after the nuclear waste has had a 'cooling down' period of 25-30 years, Ted Ringwood's invention is likely to be more highly recognised in coming decades. as he has seemed to have dropped off the radar though, I hope he hasnt gone the way of those inventors you hear about who discover ways to run cars on water(no, not involving electrolysis and hydrogen), by modifying your coil and your carbie and are never seen again.
Originally posted by RagnorakSweet Jesus, give me the insanity of a people's revolution over this kind of rationality any day. How stupid can people get?
"Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Less Developed Countries]?