Topic: So Germany is going Green - The Nuclear Energy Thread

[Detoxicated]

Hey guys, have you heard? Germany has passed laws, which state that there will be no nuclear energy used after the year 2022 in good ole Germany. This was possible due to the Green party, which rooted in the eighties and which has since then been a political activator for the green cause. What are your thoughts on this? What are your thoughts on nuclear energy? What are you thoughts on renewable ressources?

Discuss!
-Detoxicated III

[Didero]

11 years is plenty of time to reverse the decision. I think they just did it to appease the green crowd, since they got all hot and bothered after what happened in Japan.
Nuclear energy is plenty safe though, there's little chance of a tsunami in Germany, and they're not in any earthquake-prone areas, IIRC. Even though Germany's pretty large, I doubt there's enough room to build the amount of windmills and solar panels required to generate enough electricity for the country if you forgo less green options.

[/lurk]

Getting rid of nuclear energy.

Not coal power.


HURRDURRDURRDURR

[Brandonazz]

...there's little chance of a tsunami in Germany, and they're not in any earthquake-prone areas, IIRC.

Yeah but for some reason, Komedy Sam has been stockpiling dynamite under Zealand for the last few months.

Fishy, I say.

[Haseri]

Hooray for reactionary politics! Something happened that we've been told is very bad, and we don't care to inform ourselves about the dangers of such things happening near us!

Do we care that nuclear power is the safest form of energy? No!

Do we care that the worst energy-related disaster, which killed hundreds of thousands of people in China was a hydroelectric damn bursting, and Chenobyl only killed 46 people directly? No!

Because who needs facts when we have convictions and pre-concieved ideas!

Good god this is a terrible decision and the Germans should feel bad for making it.

[Person21]

Getting rid of nuclear energy.

Not coal power.

Well at least they promised to shut down all the oil power stations after that unpleasant business in the Gulf of Mexico.

[Detoxicated]

Can I say Nuclear waste?

Also solar energy, independence from a Russian plutonium market... The thing is with the green party, and hell I am not even voting for them, they want to push renewable energies which I find a good idea, considering that we are wasting away our most valuable resources like coal and oil and gas. So there is no anti-nuclear power kid in this realm of the internet, I am surprised

11 years is plenty of time to reverse the decision. I think they just did it to appease the green crowd, since they got all hot and bothered after what happened in Japan.
Nuclear energy is plenty safe though, there's little chance of a tsunami in Germany, and they're not in any earthquake-prone areas, IIRC. Even though Germany's pretty large, I doubt there's enough room to build the amount of windmills and solar panels required to generate enough electricity for the country if you forgo less green options.

. You're right the coalition of liberals and conservatives was against the stopping of nuclear energy before the tsunami, so they do it to save some votes. But many states of germany are already voting new governments so the regional powerholders change quite alot these days. I believe if you put sufficient fundings in solar energy you can make it more efficient than any other energy. Also you can invest alot in energy saving technologies and you can create more efficient products that simply use less energy. I say if the nuclear waste problem was solved, and if the power plants were actually maintained well I wouldn't be against nuclear energy, but you know how corporations with monopolies are
-Detoxicated III

[Haseri]

I like the 'Better Box' method. We secure the nuclear waste in a box we know will only be useful for a finite amount of time - 50 to 100 years or so - giving our decendents some incentive to keep technology moving forward, building better boxes or uses for nuclear waste. Ultimately, the best solution would be some way to recycle nuclear waste.

And the ultimate, ultimate solution? Fusion power.

[Krakow Sam]

Nuclear waste is like a million times less bad than massive emmisions from fossil-burning power stations and industry, and as people have rightly pointed out, no country of significant size and industrial capacity could satisfy its energy needs on renewable sources alone, barring some kind of unforseen technological breakthrough like mad-efficient solar cells made of sand and wishes.
Even taking into account the problem of waste and accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear is still a less environmentall damaging option than fossil fuels.

I'm frankly baffled as to why a country which is one of the largest producers of nuclear power in the world would suddenly just completely give it up in the wake of one disaster which can't even happen where they are.

[PatMan33]

I know this guy named Iran that may want our nuclear waste. Why not give it to him?

He seems legit.

[Detoxicated]

The thing is, how can you defend a technology which proves to be very dangerous to the Human race? I mean okay there has been only two meltdowns, but there are quite many minor miseries in these plants where alot of radioactive material is released into the public. This is always overseen by the authorities because the energy lobbys hold power over them. Why is it that people who support renewable energies, energies that become more effective every year, are looked at like they are lunatics when they are actually trying to show a piece for a better solution. I mean just looking at aesthetics solely you would rather live next to a huge solar plant than next to a nuclear reactor now, or wouldn't you?

I'm frankly baffled as to why a country which is one of the largest producers of nuclear power in the world would suddenly just completely give it up in the wake of one disaster which can't even happen where they are.

There has been a movement going on for over twenty years, the green party formed on the grounds of being against nuclear energy. Have you actually seen the latest inventions on the renewable market, and don't forget where moving on from there. If we put collective effort into it we will have all the technologies needed for a self sustaining future. There is far more than wind, water and solar energy. You have thermo-energy, tidal movement energy etc. As the corporations do not have a real interest in these technologies though, the scientific effort put into it is rather low in comparison to other fields. Oh yea, there is also clean coal and oil plants too, and you can use the CO2 produced in these plants to breed algae growing on sewer treatment plants to create biofuel. There is a buckload of possibilities, and I am sure we didn't even get to see the tip of the iceberg.

-Detoxicated XX

[PatMan33]

You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have my opening statement.

[Krakow Sam]

The thing is, how can you defend a technology which proves to be very dangerous to the Human race?

Ok, lets ban all internal combustion vehicles. Look at the death tolls. How could anyone support something so provenly dangerous to the human race.

Oh, I know. Because if we did that society as we know it would collapse and we would revert to some sort of appaling feudal hellhole.

You can't just not use something because there is a risk attached.

Also, as for renewable energy and so forth, yeah, great. There are innovations and whatnot, but there's still nothing that can provide all our energy needs. It is just a matter of numbers, even if every country in the world bankrupted itself building windfarms and solar panels and upgrading energy grids and whatever else. I'm not saying there will never be a solution, with enough time, technology can probably solve any problem we face, eventually renewable energy will be able to provide for us all. But that time isn't now, and we certainly aren't going to speed our progress toward that end by plunging the world into a horrific energy crisis by shutting down all the existing power plants and expecting renewable energy to pick up the slack.

[Haseri]

Tidal power? Do you have any idea of the enviromental impact of those things are?

Those are some delicate ecosystems.

[Didero]

Why is it that people who support renewable energies, energies that become more effective every year, are looked at like they are lunatics when they are actually trying to show a piece for a better solution. I mean just looking at aesthetics solely you would rather live next to a huge solar plant than next to a nuclear reactor now, or wouldn't you?

Now that's just playing the victim role and exaggerating the other group's viewpoint. Supporters of renewable energy aren't ridiculed, opponents just don't see it as a currently-viable solution to the energy problem.
And bringing aesthetics into a discussion like this is pretty useless. When discussion the energy production of an entire country, you don't pick the one that looks the best when you drive by.

As the corporations do not have a real interest in these technologies though, the scientific effort put into it is rather low in comparison to other fields.

That alone proves that most of these technologies aren't really viable in a reasonable timespan. If there was even the possibility of medium-term profit, don't you think corporations would jump at the chance?

Oh yea, there is also clean coal and oil plants too, and you can use the CO2 produced in these plants to breed algae growing on sewer treatment plants to create biofuel. There is a buckload of possibilities, and I am sure we didn't even get to see the tip of the iceberg.

I think that produces more CO₂ than you can use to grow algae though. And how clean is it really if it still produces emission gasses?
Plus, oil is running out, investing in that sounds a bit wasteful.

-Detoxicated XX

Off-topic, but why do you keep signing your posts with this?

[Detoxicated]

It's true what you say Krakow, but if you don't give society an incentive to change they will die with their heads in the sand. A government must push these new energies or they will never be discovered, as they serve by principle the people and cannot serve a company.
Why do I say this? Well let's see. Imagine you would have solar panels effective enough and cheap enough to support a house of two families, (there already are such devices). Now if a company which used to provide nuclear energy gives the people such a device they would be making some money at the beginning but they would be losing in the end, as at one point there would not be anyone left to supply. If everybody had a solar panel then there would be no need for an energy corporation, hence they cannot be interested in such an energy. By the way, there is villages in Germany which are completely off the energy grid, as they invested in solar technology and now they supply themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioenergy_village#J.C3.BChnde I mean these villages are small, but it just shows how intelligent architecture and renewable energies go together.

I sign my posts because I feel like it

-Detoxicated III

[Haseri]

I still push for Nuclear Fusion.

FFFEEE-YYYOOOUUU-SSSHHHUUUNNN!

[Plank of Wood]

Of course, all of this will be irrelevant once Fusion Power becomes a viable power source.

EDIT:

I still push for Nuclear Fusion.

FFFEEE-YYYOOOUUU-SSSHHHUUUNNN!

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

[munchkin5]

Nuclear is a great solution to generating energy, the people who have a problem with it are those who don't properly understand the risks involved.

But this was a stupid thing to bring up:

Chenobyl only killed 46 people directly

First of all because everyone knows Chernobyl was much worse than 46 people dying; secondly because Chernobyl is a poor example, the safety at that plant was never up to standard.

And finally:

As the corporations do not have a real interest in these technologies though, the scientific effort put into it is rather low in comparison to other fields.

That alone proves that most of these technologies aren't really viable in a reasonable timespan. If there was even the possibility of medium-term profit, don't you think corporations would jump at the chance?

It's the evil corporations man.

Seriously though, this isn't even true, renewable energy has a lot of research effort directed towards it.

[Detoxicated]

But Nuclear Fusion creates even more Nuclear Waste and is even more destructive in case of Emergency. We want to go away from that way you know... But I like the concept more, you know to atoms getting it on, banging, to create some smooth energy. Doesn't sound too bad.

-Detoxicated IV

[munchkin5]

Do you understand what fission and fusion actually are?

[Detoxicated]

Do you understand what fission and fusion actually are?

Sorry for mistyping, I hope you can jack off to the thought of having me correct my post

-Detoxicated V

[Plank of Wood]

But Nuclear Fission creates even more Nuclear Waste and is even more destructive in case of Emergency. We want to go away from that way you know... But I like the concept more, you know to atoms getting it on, banging, to create some smooth energy. Doesn't sound too bad.

Uh, I don't think we're on the same page here. We're talking about Fusion, which is Hydrogen atoms fusing to create Helium, which is one of the least reactive and harmful gases possible.

But you said fission, but then describe fusion. So I'm stumped here, clarify please?

EDIT

Do you understand what fission and fusion actually are?

Sorry for mistyping, I hope you can jack off to the thought of having me correct my post

-Detoxicated V

Oh okay. You're going to be a dick about it. Fine then.

[munchkin5]

I got you were talking about fusion, it's just that neither of those things are true about it, the only radioactive waste is low level neutron radiation of the reactor components; and so little fuel is used at any one time that a reactor failure would simply cause the reaction a stop, no explosions or anything.

[Detoxicated]

Actually I didn't know much about fusion up till now, I thought it was just as dangerous or more dangerous as fusion. It does sound promising.
I am just being a dick to people who are a dick to me.

-Detoxicated I

[munchkin5]

Where exactly was I being a dick to you?

[Haseri]

Nuclear is a great solution to generating energy, the people who have a problem with it are those who don't properly understand the risks involved.

But this was a stupid thing to bring up:

Chenobyl only killed 46 people directly

First of all because everyone knows Chernobyl was much worse than 46 people dying; secondly because Chernobyl is a poor example, the safety at that plant was never up to standard.

Feh. We can't all have fancy-shmancy debating ability.

...I can't find that io9 article showing the relative safety of various energy sources, or the one showing the death toll of the worst energy disasters.

Nuclear power was near the bottom on both.

[Plank of Wood]

Actually I didn't know much about fusion up till now, I thought it was just as dangerous or more dangerous as fusion. It does sound promising.

Basically, Fusion is the endgame for energy sources, since it produces huge amounts of energy, and it's fuel is the most abundant substance in the universe. Hopefully once Fusion is perfected Oil will no longer be needed for anything except to produce chemicals. So yay Major World Crisis resolved!

I am just being a dick to people who are a dick to me.

Except they weren't, you insulted someone who needed clarification on something which you could have easily resolved. That makes you the dick.

[Brandonazz]

Calm down, Detox

[Eagle]

I am not going to bother reading all the previous posts so I am going to say this:


If you are contra-nuclear you are dumb.



EDIT: I read the thread and am going to narrow it down to Detoxicated.

[emmet]

I got so irritated when I read this. Banning nuclear power, and (presumably) at least partially dismantling the plants. That's not green in any way. It's anti-green.

Fact is, nuclear fission is pretty much the best energy source we have right now. Only reason it bothers people so much is that we can actually see the solid waste, as opposed to the invisible and therefore non-existent waste produced by fossil fuels.

Besides, nuclear waste is only waste until we can find out what to do with it.

[munchkin5]

Basically, Fusion is the endgame for energy sources, since it produces huge amounts of energy, and it's fuel is the most abundant substance in the universe. Hopefully once Fusion is perfected Oil will no longer be needed for anything except to produce chemicals. So yay Major World Crisis resolved!

Actually it isn't the end game. Fussion as it's currently being developed also requires lithium to complete the reaction cycle, it's fairly common but not infinite, there are better fuel cycles however, they're just harder to do; and while fussion ranks near the top, there are also higher efficiency reactions out there on the mass to energy conversion scale, antimatter/matter annihilation reactions for example.


I'm here to educate.

[Neoadept]

Ultimately, the best solution would be some way to recycle nuclear waste.

We have that, they're called Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactors.  It burns through fuel so efficiently that the worst of it's products only last a couple centuries before they're less radioactive than dirt.  They can run on recycled fuel rods from the last generation of reactors, which takes care of the old waste too.  And the fluoride salts they use as a medium expand under heat, slowing the reaction, which means that it would be damn near impossible to make one of these things melt down.

antimatter/matter annihilation reactions for example.

That's not a power source, it's a storage medium.  There's no abundant source of the stuff anywhere in the galaxy because of the same thing that makes it a good storage medium:  It's tendency to explode in the presence of ordinary matter, which everything we associate with is made of.  Honestly, because of how grossly inefficient the conversion process is, the only place it's even remotely useful is as fuel for interstellar travel where you need the best energy to mass ratio possible,

[Plank of Wood]

Basically, Fusion is the endgame for energy sources, since it produces huge amounts of energy, and it's fuel is the most abundant substance in the universe. Hopefully once Fusion is perfected Oil will no longer be needed for anything except to produce chemicals. So yay Major World Crisis resolved!

Actually it isn't the end game. Fussion as it's currently being developed also requires lithium to complete the reaction cycle, it's fairly common but not infinite, there are better fuel cycles however, they're just harder to do; and while fussion ranks near the top, there are also higher efficiency reactions out there on the mass to energy conversion scale, antimatter/matter annihilation reactions for example.

Oh cool, I guess you learn something new every day.

Thanks dude.

[Eagle]

Neoadept totally debunked the matter-antimatter thing though.

[munchkin5]

I wasn't suggesting it should be used as a power source, not to say that it couldn't be in future, it's not impossible. But what neo was saying is pretty much correct, there are no places that we know of to get enough of the stuff and it's costly to make.

There are other things too, there are some intresting things you can do with virtual particles and we still have to work out what that dark matter/energy stuff is and what it does. They're pretty unknown areas though, nothing to get excited about.

[Eagle]

So far we can only create net forces by putting two slates, mirrors usually, really close to each other and we can transform virtual particles in actual particles by moving the mirrors at relativistic speeds.

Dark matter and energy will probably never be used for something other than explaining cosmological stuff.

[PatMan33]

Someone quote me and tell me how I'm right and the other guy is wrong.

[Eagle]

You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have my opening statement.

By god, he's right!

[sgore]

And that other guy? Psht. So wrong.

[Ultimatum]

You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have my opening statement.

By god, he's right!

God*

[/lurk]

You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have my opening statement.

By god, he's right!

God*

*MIGHTY ODIN

[Ultimatum]

You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have my opening statement.

By god, he's right!

God*

*MIGHTY ODIN

 

[Eagle]

You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have my opening statement.

By god, he's right!

God*

As an atheist I do not capitalise it, because that would imply it's a name of an existing being.


BUT THAT'S FOR A COMPLETELY OTHER TIME.

[Plank of Wood]

Scooby-Doo isn't an existing being, but you still use the basic rules of grammar when you write his name.

[Detoxicated]

I am not going to bother reading all the previous posts so I am going to say this:


If you are contra-nuclear you are dumb.



EDIT: I read the thread and am going to narrow it down to Detoxicated.

Intelligent statement, really mature too... You get a dick point.

And munchkin, I misunderstood, your post sounded sarcastic in my head, so shame on me and the inability of text to transmit subcontext.

Um, how is a power which is constantly releasing substances that cause terminal illnesses, while creating waste which destroys the land any good? Like I can see your point of bashing coal power and the likes, but honestly defending nuclear fission energy, knowing that it causes diseases and problems, destroying biotopes is not clean. There might be less CO2 coming out, but on the other hand you have a duckload of terminal things coming out. The human actions cause maybe 5 percent of the actual CO2 emissions so it shouldn't be the leading argument. Nuclear fission is still unrenewable energy, so it won't last forever, but we won't see the end coming. We do know of the terrible byproducts. I am just saying there is you can gain energy in harmony with nature, and its already possible to an extend which is simply denied by many of you, as nobody even read the wiki link I posted, as I must presume, because there was no comment on it. But I guess it's better to use good old clean, corporate nuclear energy, for a better tomorrow.
-Detoxicated III

[munchkin5]

About radiation risk; unless something goes disastrously wrong with a nuclear power station somewhere within less than a hundred miles of you, you will be exposed to orders of magnitude more radiation just from the food you eat, than you will from the negligible fraction of background radiation produced by nuclear powerplants.

[Flisch]

About radiation risk; unless something goes disastrously wrong with a nuclear power station somewhere within less than a hundred miles of you, you will be exposed to orders of magnitude more radiation just from the food you eat, than you will from the negligible fraction of background radiation produced by nuclear powerplants.

*stops eating* :x

[Mr. Wizard]

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

You get more radiation from eating a banana than living within 50 miles of a power plant for one year. You get three times the radiation by living near a coal power plant for one year.
THIS JUST IN: GERMANY BANNING BANANAS


Yeah, reactionary stances on Nuclear power is just plain stupid. Burning things like cave men is the most dangerous power generation, because it ACTUALLY kills people every year. Nuclear power has the fewest deaths per kilowatt hour of any major energy producer. All of the disasters so far were caused by old equipment or poor safety requirements from countries much less stringent safety guidelines. They're basing  their policy on a disaster that happened to a powerplant that was a mere 2 weeks away from being decommissioned. Chernobyl was a remarkable failure because the safety guidelines were written by Soviets. The Soviet idea of a safety was leagues behind everyone else. Their idea of a self contained space suit has a cloth tube that has to be folded by the cosmonaut to form an airtight seal before the spacewalk.

I guess it makes sense that Germans would choose the incinerator, because that is the only way Germany would be able to pick up the slack. This is a stupid, reactionary stance, and it will help absolutely no one and will not save any lives, but it might make future livelihoods much more difficult. France elected to expand their nuclear footprint, so it will be interesting to see which country is going to have an economic growth, and which one will be begging for their scraps. Germans better practice their puppy dog eyes now.

[Eagle]

I am not going to bother reading all the previous posts so I am going to say this:


If you are contra-nuclear you are dumb.



EDIT: I read the thread and am going to narrow it down to Detoxicated.

Intelligent statement, really mature too... You get a dick point.

And munchkin, I misunderstood, your post sounded sarcastic in my head, so shame on me and the inability of text to transmit subcontext.

Um, how is a power which is constantly releasing substances that cause terminal illnesses, while creating waste which destroys the land any good? Like I can see your point of bashing coal power and the likes, but honestly defending nuclear fission energy, knowing that it causes diseases and problems, destroying biotopes is not clean. There might be less CO2 coming out, but on the other hand you have a duckload of terminal things coming out. The human actions cause maybe 5 percent of the actual CO2 emissions so it shouldn't be the leading argument. Nuclear fission is still unrenewable energy, so it won't last forever, but we won't see the end coming. We do know of the terrible byproducts. I am just saying there is you can gain energy in harmony with nature, and its already possible to an extend which is simply denied by many of you, as nobody even read the wiki link I posted, as I must presume, because there was no comment on it. But I guess it's better to use good old clean, corporate nuclear energy, for a better tomorrow.
-Detoxicated III

Because unlike what you're saying, nuclear power plants are pretty much the safest things around. The nuclear waste is minimal with current technologies and will decrease in radioactivity once thorium-based reactors phase out the current uranium ones. Thorium is also 450% more present in the earth's crust than uranium, meaning a sudden influx of more fuel.

You can say whatever you want, but renewable energy simply CANNOT replace coal-based and nuclear-based energy. Those types of energy occupy a lot less space and put out a lot more energy, no matter what.

Our only hope for green energy is making asimov arrays and who knows if that will ever be plausible. That or covering everything on Earth with solar cells.

Outright wanting to remove an incredibly productive and almost completely safe power source out of fear is ridiculous. Chernobyl isn't even a good example of nuclear fission gone wrong because if the soviets hadn't been dumbasses they could have saved the plant before it was too late. The plant in Fukushima is also quite bad because the plant endured a tsunami and an earthquake and even then the damage could have been a lot worse.

Also, I was blunt because environmentalist hippies don't usually listen to arguments.

[Hammerman58]

I think it is horrible. First off using a disaster to push political agenda is wrong because it takes advantage of people who have knee jerk reactions and do stupid stuff like the Germans without thinking the benefits greatly outnumber the risks. Second nuclear is safe (Chernobyl does not count since a book could be written with everything they did wrong.) Not one death has been attributed to three mile island.The Fukushima plant radiation that spread to other countries was less than that of a banana. Also, the plant was not originally built to handle tsunamis which I assume we now know a lot more on the subject then 30 years ago.  They tried retrofit the plant but no one can completely protect anything from a natural disaster. Nuclear is the future until something better comes a long that is more efficient and clean. Herpderping people that want nuclear gone are morons who don't know the facts.

[Detoxicated]

Thank you for your fine argument sir, while I do not share your views its display is fairly nice to the eye.
I also would like to point out that my personal views are far from reactionary. As I said, I don't have much of a problem with nuclear energy when it comes down to finding a good way to take care of the waste, and if they actually would increase the safety within the plants, so the population does not get in contact with more than the usual radiation levels. This has not been provided in Germany, but they only recently found out that many incidents in which substances were released weren't even reported to the office in power. Therefore I must demand my right to demand a better alternative or highly updated and better equipped nuclear plants. As long as the problems of nuclear pollution aren't sold it cannot be acceptable to a government to let the Energy Enterprises poison our system. The thing is they say its free trade, but in Germany its really just a few companies who always make deals off-chart with each other. The corruption of man causes most of the inefficiencies of nuclear energy.
Also I would like to point out that I am not a hippy. I punch back.

I think it is horrible. First off using a disaster to push political agenda is wrong because it takes advantage of people who have knee jerk reactions and do stupid stuff like the Germans without thinking the benefits greatly outnumber the risks. Second nuclear is safe (Chernobyl does not count since a book could be written with everything they did wrong.) Not one death has been attributed to three mile island.The Fukushima plant radiation that spread to other countries was less than that of a banana. Also, the plant was not originally built to handle tsunamis which I assume we now know a lot more on the subject then 30 years ago.  They tried retrofit the plant but no one can completely protect anything from a natural disaster. Nuclear is the future until something better comes a long that is more efficient and clean. Herpderping people that want nuclear gone are morons who don't know the facts.

The thing is, the movement of having Nuclear energy removed exists for more than thirty years, and has become part of political life in Germany. Germany has alot less Citizens than the US and has therefore an infrastructure of a different scale. There is no huge metropolis as there are in the US, the biggest city is Berlin with 3.5 million citizens. A big part of the people still live in rural areas and small towns. These small towns often have the ability to build City Owned electricity buildings, which led to towns that could partially or entirely could live by solar and wind technology. They're starting to build Geothermical Plants too. So in ten years you could reduce the necessity for "stronger" energies by distributing more and more to smaller communities. This will boost the economy on that sector and also will it increase the rate of improval per year of these technologies. You could start building cell phones and other electric things running entirely on solar power.
-Detoxicated IV
Edit: In Germany we call the reactionary greens: "Ecofascists".

[Kitkat]

Am I the only person who thinks that we should seriously look into antimatter energy generation? Really, you get no leftover waste from that stuff. NO WASTE. AT ALL. An if anyone brings up the fact that it would obliterate the planet, it could just as easily be produced on demand so none is ever in storage.

[Luminar]

We switch to nuclear or we're all dead from runaway greenhouse effect.
Of course this won't happen because there's too much in it for rich old white men who don't care what happens after they die. Just like everything else. Might as well just be dead now for all the ****ing difference it makes.

[Inkling]

Detox, please give us an example of a normal, functioning plant where radiation has leaked into the environment.  Chernobyl, Three Mile and Fukishima don't count.

[PatMan33]

You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have my opening statement.

By god, he's right!

God*

*MIGHTY ODIN

 

You have no right to be mad at him. He did to you what you did to him.

[Rysworld]

So, before Detox goes and posts "grr why don't those three count." I'm going to explain.

Chernobyl was built out of duct tape and unicorn fur. To say that it was not up to code would've been the understatement of the twentieth century. The Soviets decided to build it retardedly. Enough said.

Three Mile Island, well, if my sources are correct, there were insignificant casualties if any; plus it was caused by user inefficiency, rather than any sort of problem with the power source.

As has been mentioned before (though I do not know as much about this accident), Fukushima was thirtysome years old, and likely wasn't as well made as newer power plants were.

If I made any mistakes, please do not hesitate to let me know.

[Kitkat]

Fun Fact: The newest power plant being built in the U.S. literally uses technology made in the seventies.

[Rysworld]

I'd wager that the safety precautions, seeing as how we've had a bit more experience with such things, are more up to code, whether security, physical, or procedure.

[Inkling]

I also excluded those three because Detox seems to be saying that during normal operations, nuclear plants release dangerous radiation into the environment.  That is not the case, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread.

[Detoxicated]

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html
http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2010/02/vermont_yankee_radioactive_lea.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents#1950s
I never said that it happens on a regular basis, by procedure of the plant, but it happens often due to failures of often ancient technology and dumb ass people who can't do their jobs right.

these links should provide you more than enough info on releases, but if that isn't enough for you I'll post more and more and more.
with best regards,
-Detoxicated V

[Haseri]

I think most failures that happen to anything are due to outdated technologies and people not doing their jobs.

[Detoxicated]

Yea, bur a leak in a coal power plant doesn't lead to radioactive pollution, a failing solar power plant doesn't leak that either. When technology and people fail in a nuclear plant lives are risked.
Also: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8785 and http://www.news-medical.net/news/2007/12/10/33273.aspx
-Detoxicated V

[Plank of Wood]

A Coal Power Plant pollutes and kills when it works.

[Neoadept]

Chernobyl was built out of duct tape and unicorn fur. To say that it was not up to code would've been the understatement of the twentieth century. The Soviets decided to build it retardedly. Enough said.

And let's not forget that the failure was specifically due to a test that no one approved, was done with a crew that wasn't trained for it, and required turning off all the failsafes they had.

It really was the perfect disaster.

Three Mile Island, well, if my sources are correct, there were insignificant casualties if any; plus it was caused by user inefficiency, rather than any sort of problem with the power source.

Zero casualties and a study done years later concluded that the cancer rate for those involved was no higher than the national average.

Am I the only person who thinks that we should seriously look into antimatter energy generation? Really, you get no leftover waste from that stuff. NO WASTE. AT ALL. An if anyone brings up the fact that it would obliterate the planet, it could just as easily be produced on demand so none is ever in storage.

Oh come on, I just went over this.  You can't generate power with antimatter.  You can store power, but it takes a thousand times more energy to make the stuff than what it puts out.  And do you know how much of a nightmare it would be to harness that for anything other than rocket fuel?

Actually, that's a perfect analogy.  Rocket fuel is many times more powerful than oil, but no one uses it in power plants because it take enormous amounts of time and money to make the stuff and the manufacturing process uses more energy than the rocket fuel will return.

You see, folks, Dan Brown books aren't just wrong about their wild conspiracy theories and religious conjecture.  They get all the science wrong too.

[munchkin5]

There's a lot of misinformation in those sources Detox; those two lists you posted don't provide much detail about levels of radiation released, or specific risks caused by them, and those articles about increased cancer risk aren't accurate, they don't even cite their sources and there's an awful lot of evidence to the contrary out there.

[Krakow Sam]

Thats because hippies, by definition, are terrible at facts and science.

[Doctor Z]

I always found power generation using Nuclear Fission and/or Fusion absurd, because in one you're using the power of an exploding atom to... put on a tea-kettle, basically. And the other, you're using the mother****ing Sun, to do the same thing. Unless I misunderstood how the current conception of power generation via Fusion would be, it'd be using the heat generated to boil water, right?

Edit: I'm not saying their bad/wrong. Just kind of funny.

[emmet]

Essentially it all comes down to converting it to kinetic energy. Boiling water to turn dynamoes is a very efficient end easy method.

[Doctor Z]

Yep. Still incredibly silly when you think about it. We're all running on steam, albeit indirectly.

[Neoadept]

Actually, fusion is moving away from the original Tokamak designs, that used magnetic fields to focus the reaction and generate heat for your "tea kettle", and towards Focus Fussion, which causes the plasma to compress under it's own magnetic field in such a way that it emits a directed electron beam that can be used in combination with coils to generate electricity directly.

Welcome to the ****ing future, it's powered by electric laser beams.

[Detoxicated]

SO why don't you post sources for a change? I haven't seen any yet. At least I provide info based on something, you just state that I am wrong. So I guess the hippy is more interested in showing the truth. Show me that I am wrong, I am willing to learn. Also I am not a hippie, you don't know me.
-Detoxicated V
Edit: There is also an awful lot of evidence to prove the increased risk of cancer, so I guess it's truth against truth.

[Kaizer]

So I heard that you can get skin cancer from being out in the sun too long



BAN SOLAR POWER

[Detoxicated]

So I heard that you can get skin cancer from being out in the sun too long



BAN SOLAR POWER

And that's the reason why I don't do crack
-Detoxicated III

[munchkin5]

Actually, fusion is moving away from the original Tokamak designs, that used magnetic fields to focus the reaction and generate heat for your "tea kettle", and towards Focus Fussion, which causes the plasma to compress under it's own magnetic field in such a way that it emits a directed electron beam that can be used in combination with coils to generate electricity directly.

Welcome to the ****ing future, it's powered by electric laser beams.

They're moving away from fusion? Well that massive new reactor in France is gonna be a waste of money then.

Also, sources tomorrow, sleep now.

[Rysworld]

SO why don't you post sources for a change? I haven't seen any yet.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/21/nuclear-waste-energy-technology-breakthroughs-nuclear.html (For how to deal with the waste.)

http://xkcd.com/radiation/ (For proof that radiation you get from living near plants is inconsequential to your health*)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_1952 (For proof that other forms of energy are at the very very very least divided by three are more harmful than fission)

*Doesn't matter that it's only for general education, it is accurate enough for the purposes of this debate.

(Probably should've quoted these, since they came from the thread. Whatever.)

[Neoadept]

Actually, fusion is moving away from the original Tokamak designs, that used magnetic fields to focus the reaction and generate heat for your "tea kettle", and towards Focus Fussion, which causes the plasma to compress under it's own magnetic field in such a way that it emits a directed electron beam that can be used in combination with coils to generate electricity directly.

Welcome to the ****ing future, it's powered by electric laser beams.

They're moving away from fusion? Well that massive new reactor in France is gonna be a waste of money then.

What, no, read what I wrote.  They're moving away from the Tokamak design of fusion reactors.  Focused Fusion is still fusion, it just uses a novel method for causing the fusion and bypasses the need for a steam generator.  Tokamak reactors are still viable, I just really like the idea behind dense plasma focus.

[Doctor Z]

Yeah, I heard about that, I just didn't think of it at the time of writing.

[Kaizer]

You guys don't understand ever since we started using nuclear reactors for energy needs the levels of science pollution in the world has reached COMPLETE.GLOBAL.SATURATIONlololol wesker


if we dont switch to different methods soon I'm afraid we may have to handle the effects of global scienceing sooner than we expected

[munchkin5]

I actually wrote that wrong, i meant to write "tokamaks" instead of "fusion"..

[Legodragonxp]

Hey guys, have you heard? Germany has passed laws, which state that there will be no nuclear energy used after the year 2022 in good ole Germany. This was possible due to the Green party, which rooted in the eighties and which has since then been a political activator for the green cause. What are your thoughts on this? What are your thoughts on nuclear energy? What are you thoughts on renewable ressources?

Discuss!
-Detoxicated III

Wait, wait, wait. While it has been a while, you mean to tell me that Germany is passing a set of sweeping laws? A high-tech Nuremberg law? Its 1935 all over again.

Once all the Germans were warlike and mean,
But that couldn't happen again.
We taught them a lesson in nineteen eighteen,
And they've hardly bothered us since then.

[/i]
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB7PRY1Aqds" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB7PRY1Aqds</a>

-Lego

[Plank of Wood]

Lego is the first person to make a Nazi Germany joke in the thread!


I'd give you a medal but all the materials needed for it are being used to construct the Autobahns.

[Kitkat]

So I heard that you can get skin cancer from being out in the sun too long



BAN SOLAR POWER

And that's the reason why I don't do crack
-Detoxicated III

But I imagine you do just about everything else in existence.

COUNTER-TROLLIN' YYEEEAAAAAAH

[Plank of Wood]

And that's the reason why I don't do crack
-Detoxicated III

Seriously?

So you complain that no-body takes you seriously in debates for the sole reason that you admitted to doing drugs. But when other people make jokes about you then they're clearly taking drugs and their minds are deficient because of this. Get the **** out.

Of course there is the even worse idea that you didn't get that he was making a joke. I mean, you didn't have to find it funny but most rational people would recognise that he wasn't being completely serious, right?

[Krakow Sam]

Also I'm pretty sure the real reason Detox doesn't do crack is because its too expensive for hippies.

[Detoxicated]

Good morning bastard forum.
The thing is you don't understand a counterjoke either, also you say that you debate, but all you really do is saying that I am wrong, except for Rysworld, who actually did post some links. They were in my opinion quite informative in one way, but not disproving to my cause on the other hand. The article on nuclear waste was an insight, but as the article stated, it's far from being able to be used industrial so it's uninteresting for this discussion.

Oh plank you don't understand a joke yourself, but you want to defamize me for it? Honestly, anybody who'd think Kaizer was being serious would be close to retarded in my opinion. I just didn't like his joke, I found it very snarky. Also very intelligent to say something about Nazis, cuz you know, whenever there's a German involved at one point the Nazi Hammer is being swung.

Oh I am waiting on your stupidities to respond to this already.
-Detoxicated I

[Haseri]

Ad Hominum insults now?

I will have you know that the parentage of this forum is not in denial.

[Detoxicated]

Awesome, tell them I want Ice Cream too,
also if you read the past 6 pages, you will come to the conclusion that I have been insulted as a hippy numerous times, oh and slewd language was used against me too, but I know this won't reach anything as you can clearly see that the public thinks I am a crazy treehugger. Also where was I being insulting in my thread, besides bastard forum?
-Detoxicated IV

[Krakow Sam]

Detox, Rysworld just reposted links which other people had used to back up their arguments. Apparently you didn't bother to look at them the first time around.

[emmet]

Can we stop feeding the troll now? Can a mod lock this? It's getting out of hand. >_>

[Plank of Wood]

Good morning bastard forum.

You say that as if you have to stay here.

[Krakow Sam]

Yeah, good idea Tesla. We'll reopen this when things have cooled down.

Which will be a long time with all this global warming emirite? :U