• VICE: How Australia Perfected Solar Power and Then Went Back to Coal
    40 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Brandy92;45861226]You must be a nuclear engineer.[/QUOTE] sorry about the fact that you're terribly misinformed and that you channel your anger into making passive-aggressive comments instead of, i dunno, actual research instead of wikipedia links lmao
[QUOTE=Brandy92;45861226]You must be a nuclear engineer. The entire process is made unsafe either directly or indirectly by human nature. Here's a handy list: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents[/url] Most of the world is slowly retiring their nuclear reactors, some even early. [IMG]http://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/assets/4844968/Screen_Shot_2014-08-01_at_12.08.58_PM.png[/IMG] While it provides a [B]lot [/B]of power, the risk it entails is too catastrophic to put it to use indefinitely.[/QUOTE] I am aspiring to become a nuclear engineer after high school, so I am well read on the subject. The largest nuclear incident in the United States was Three Mile Island. You know..where the safety mechanisms and procedures worked and prevented it from developing into a major catastrophe. Chernobyl, the worst incident to occur in the world, was built by [i]civil[/i] engineers using twenty year old designs. Furthermore, safety systems were overridden during the incident. Fukushima, the second worst incident to occur in the world, was built in an unsuitable place (the islands of Japan in general are not suitable for nuclear energy) and up until two years ago, Japan lacked a nuclear regulatory agency whatsoever. You will realize that the major incidents in the world are a result of human negligence, rather than something inherently "risky" about nuclear power. The solution is not to prematurely bury the prospects of nuclear energy as you would wish to do. These incidents only prove that [i]safe[/i] nuclear energy production requires stringent regulations, which [b]already exist[/b] in the United States and other Western countries that operate nuclear reactors. As for your graph, you are simply misrepresenting statistics. Many of the nuclear reactors operating in the world today were built in the 1960s and 1970s. Nuclear reactors have set operational lives before they become too old. We have reached a point where the majority of our reactors need to be retired, and new ones built. Unfortunately, in some areas of the world, people like you are misinformed about nuclear energy and spread hysteria, thus perpetuating the Western world's egregious contributions to humanity's carbon footprint. I sincerely hope that you educate yourself on the topic, because the decisions that our generation makes about energy will have irrevocable effects on generations to come.
[QUOTE=adam1172;45862064]We do?[/QUOTE] Yeah, top level of the physics building, and 3rd floor of the chemistry building.
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;45867876]I am aspiring to become a nuclear engineer after high school, so I am well read on the subject. The largest nuclear incident in the United States was Three Mile Island. You know..where the safety mechanisms and procedures worked and prevented it from developing into a major catastrophe. Chernobyl, the worst incident to occur in the world, was built by [i]civil[/i] engineers using twenty year old designs. Furthermore, safety systems were overridden during the incident. Fukushima, the second worst incident to occur in the world, was built in an unsuitable place (the islands of Japan in general are not suitable for nuclear energy) and up until two years ago, Japan lacked a nuclear regulatory agency whatsoever. You will realize that the major incidents in the world are a result of human negligence, rather than something inherently "risky" about nuclear power. The solution is not to prematurely bury the prospects of nuclear energy as you would wish to do. These incidents only prove that [i]safe[/i] nuclear energy production requires stringent regulations, which [b]already exist[/b] in the United States and other Western countries that operate nuclear reactors. As for your graph, you are simply misrepresenting statistics. Many of the nuclear reactors operating in the world today were built in the 1960s and 1970s. Nuclear reactors have set operational lives before they become too old. We have reached a point where the majority of our reactors need to be retired, and new ones built. Unfortunately, in some areas of the world, people like you are misinformed about nuclear energy and spread hysteria, thus perpetuating the Western world's egregious contributions to humanity's carbon footprint. I sincerely hope that you educate yourself on the topic, because the decisions that our generation makes about energy will have irrevocable effects on generations to come.[/QUOTE] 's also worth mentioning that three mile island also occurred due to the fact the self-solving (for lack of better terms) valve had been shut off manually in err.
[QUOTE=Brandy92;45861226]You must be a nuclear engineer. The entire process is made unsafe either directly or indirectly by human nature. Here's a handy list: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents[/url] Most of the world is slowly retiring their nuclear reactors, some even early. [IMG]http://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/assets/4844968/Screen_Shot_2014-08-01_at_12.08.58_PM.png[/IMG] While it provides a [B]lot [/B]of power, the risk it entails is too catastrophic to put it to use indefinitely.[/QUOTE] Oh boy, I get to use this thing I saved earlier. [t]http://i.imgur.com/1HsRyne.png[/t]
[QUOTE=Bradyns;45867902]Yeah, top level of the physics building, and 3rd floor of the chemistry building.[/QUOTE] Which uni are you at?
[QUOTE=sltungle;45868231]Which uni are you at?[/QUOTE] University of Newcastle (Callaghan campus).
[QUOTE=Bradyns;45868352]University of Newcastle (Callaghan campus).[/QUOTE] Your university coincidentally does the same type of stuff in the same locations as my university (like the floors of buildings). Weird.
[QUOTE=sltungle;45868543]Your university coincidentally does the same type of stuff in the same locations as my university (like the floors of buildings). Weird.[/QUOTE] :tinfoil:
Christ, here we go again. [QUOTE=Brandy92;45861527]If a nuclear plant in Japan of all places isn't adhering to standards we don't have much hope.[/QUOTE] Japan had no nuclear regulatory body until after the accident occurred. All nuclear power generation in the country was done under the vague "supervision" of the non-regulatory IAEA. All other developed countries using nuclear power have such organizations (the NRC in the US, which is extremely strict). [QUOTE=Brandy92;45861527]Fatalaties are not what is most crucial here, it's ecological destruction.[/QUOTE] The only disaster with long-lasting "ecological destruction" was Chernobyl. Fukushima's radioactive materials were contained far better, and that which was dumped into the ocean is negligible. [QUOTE=Brandy92;45861527]I get your point about coal mining, it's bad, everyone knows. We should be pushing harder into renewables than into dangerous and destructive sources of energy.[/QUOTE] That's true! Coal mining is, indeed, very bad. Unfortunately for your argument, in terms of death per kWh generated, nuclear energy is still the safest source of power: - Coal: >1000x more dangerous - Natural gas: 44x more dangerous - Solar: 5x more dangerous - Wind: 2x more dangerous (mostly from maintenance workers falling off turbines) [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_burn_centers_in_the_United_States"]So...[/URL]
Like most disasters, Fukishima (And Chernobyl) wasn't caused by a single failure, it was a bunch of errors that added up. As an example, did you know Japan has 2 separate power grids and you can't connect devices meant for one grid up to the other? Neither did the people who brought in the backup power generator for the reactor cooling equipment, because they got the wrong type and caused a delay until they could track down the right kind of generator.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.