When things are going well
Meanwhile when things are going well in the coal industry the environment is being completely fucked and us with it, imagine what happens when coal doesn't go well?
Resonant is being silly but everyone seems to be misrepresenting his point. He was saying that nuclear waste storage facilities may fall into disrepair during times of crisis leading to dispersal of radioactive materials into the environment. He's not saying that nuclear power plants themselves will turn into time bombs and explode. It's still a relative nonissue but it really doesn't help your case to misinterpret your opponent in order to score sick zingers, whether intentionally or not.
That's kind of the point though, even if for whatever reason our world collapses through some cataclysmic war, the potential fallout from nuclear waste storage sites dialed up to eleven in a worst case scenario. Would still be less than the dangers we face today because of coal dust pollution and other energy related health risks.
But that's not a real risk, and even if it was, the size of that risk, is less than the risk we face this very second from active coal in our air.
wasn't all the reactors aside from tepco's had no problem in the incidents? and tepco was warned about it. I couldn't remember the details that well so please correct me if this is wrong
I literally said in the first line of my post that he was being silly, and that it's a nonissue. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with this post.
I don't think i'm misinterpreting his point as you claimed everyone was.
I get his point is that in the worst case scenario nuclear waste is a worry, you agree this is silly, so do I.
I just don't think I'm misunderstanding or misinterpreting his point here.
I'm not entirely confident that the human race is going to view Nuclear energy as a good decision if we use it until we run out of fuel. I think the plaque that the nations are working on in Finland says it much better than I could. (The one from the previous video).
It's not even the worst case scenario however, you're imagining world war 3, or a super volcano. I'm imagining small civil wars, natural disasters and human negligence to be a problem with nuclear power in the future, when it becomes wider spread, more accepted, better lobbied and less scrutinized.
I guess it's a non issue until it's an issue.
Okay. So we should give up, and all, collectively walk away from any new technology.
I'm sorry, but I didn't misinterpret your point, and your point just doesn't stand up to reality here.
Nuclear waste, if it were to be left in an open field, in an active war zone, would still cause less loss of life than coal does today.
Is there a single way to put the scale of disaster into your mind for you? The fear you have of what a "Civil war" would cost a nation with nuclear power is already a lesser scale than todays current consumption of coal, and the cost of life that has.TODAY.
So, I don't get it. You're, as far as I can see, saying "It's okay that 250,000 people a year die from coal. What's not okay, is if we shifted that 250,000 deaths from coal, and had even a small increase in the death toll from nuclear"
As I've already stated, for apparently no use, the average daily cost of coal to life on earth today, is higher than your "Civil war" scenario would be in a worst case scenario.
So basically, the worst case scenario you've imagined is better than our real world today. And you'd still rather we didn't move forward.
Why?
I feel like it's not me that you're arguing with.
Headhumpy is right, you're misinterpreting my words so you can jizz your hardon for this fuel source onto the thread.
Why do you keep suggesting I'm an advocate of coal or any kind of fossil fuel in general? This all started with me saying I have reservations for the wide scale use of this fuel source.
What am I misinterpreting though? You're saying the risk of nuclear fuel being used in a widespread manner is too high because in the rare event of a civil war, or an actual war, that waste is too dangerous to be allowed to be out in the open.
That is wrong. I have tried to explain why that's wrong from multiple angles. I am in no way saying you're a coal advocate. What I'm saying is that nuclear power saves billions of lives, and would continue to do so if allowed. It's not about you being a coal advocate. It's about coal, and natural gas being the only real options the world has for energy outside of Nuclear power.
To sit and worry that in the event of a civil war, nuclear power would be too great of a risk is ignoring the greater problem. More people will die from continuing down our current course, than could ever die down your worst case scenario.
Why you paint me as an absolutist is baffling. I haven't said the risk is too high, I"m saying there is a risk worth pausing for.
All this thread has been is me pointing out that there are some big holes we need to plug before we put this into mass production and pointed out that if shit were to hit the fan and we aren't entirely careful with where we build nuclear plants and how we store the waste we are going to have problems that will last us for potentially tens of thousands of years.
Solar wind and tidal energy are in my opinion humanities future, we just are not at the level to meet energy demands yet, one day we won't be using nuclear apart from in specific situations (subs, spacecraft),I have a suspicion our descendants will look down at us for using it, and can only hope they don't suffer from it.
Please stop mentioning fossil fuels as if I'm immoral or something, the effects of which are obvious, let's just make sure we don't step out of the frying pan onto a lego floor.
It's physically impossible to create enough solar, and wind power to satisfy a grid, even with a hypothetical super battery.
They don't generate enough energy. That's just a fact.
More people die creating Hydro electric dams, Geothemral stations, wind turbines, and solar panels, than do from any aspect of nuclear power generation, or waste storage.
Solar energy is incredibly "Anti-green" as it requires a wealth of expensive, complicated processes to create, and in the United States, every single solar panel created and installed has no planned method of recycling for the end of their lives.
The problem I have with you saying you're not an "absolutist" is you certainly sound to be. Saying "Our ancestors will look down on us for using Nuclear" sure as fuck sounds like an absolutist position to me.
I am an advocate for all green technologies. And if you had watched that video with Micheal Shellenberger, you'd have seen WHY that is. Why it is that wind and solar aren't the answer.
Please, i've asked you to educate yourself because you've refused to take ANYTHING said to you about why your fears are simply irrational seriously. I'm just asking you to look at my side of the argument, you have refused, and said that all I'm doing is "jerking off my love for this source of power" which is just straight up fucking false bullshit.
I'm pushing this as a source of energy because green advocates have been scared off of the only real solution that we have and we're fucked if we don't take it. We literally cannot sustain our current energy use, or growth, with Wind, Solar, GeoThermal, or Hydro. None of that is enough. It requires nuclear, or fossil fuels.
Our ancestors would look down on us for delaying our transition off coal for another 10 years. Not for using nuclear, the source of energy they'll likely be using 500 years from now.
If you're going to quote me please do it properly.
"I have a suspicion our descendants will look down at us for using it"
A little less absolutist when compared to the former, wouldn't you think.
Regarding the deaths, are you incorporating uranium mining in the "nuclear power generation" claim? Uranium mining is disastrously lethal to those in the industry, health literature suggests that uranium mining may be positively associated with leukemia, stomach cancer, liver cancer, non-malignant respiratory diseases (e.g. silicosis, obstructive airways disease, non-specific chronic lung disease), and diseases of the blood and other blood-forming organs and studies have said that uranium miners die earlier by 20–22 years based on their life expectancy.
This is all because of radon gas, this does not count accidents in the mine. Your figures probably won't be sitting so pretty if the world switched over and uranium demand went up a few thousand percent.
What are the health costs of uranium mining? A case study of min..
The plants are clean enough, I'm not arguing with that. Regarding the claim that renewable energy CANNOT meet our demands, let's say in the next 10 years, let's keep an eye on the progress of that, I'm hoping, as I'm sure you are that you eat your words. Regarding the work, yes it's dangerous, people will always die, but it won't fuck with our genetics and it won't contaminate the nature around it and so for that my preference and hope is almost entirely with renewable, if we put the money allocated to nuclear development directly into renewable I'd say we'd have the majority of the problem fixed in a couple decades.
I'm not saying nuclear energy is a bad choice, I'm saying it should be a last resort, we currently have options, though not for long.
Yes the numbers for nuclear related deaths include mining.
For fuck's sake, looks like it is time for another haha oh boy here we go again
The plants are clean enough, I'm not arguing with that. Regarding the claim that renewable energy CANNOT meet our demands, let's say in the next 10 years, let's keep an eye on the progress of that, I'm hoping, as I'm sure you are that you eat your words. Regarding the work, yes it's dangerous, people will always die, but it won't fuck with our genetics and it won't contaminate the nature around it and so for that my preference and hope is almost entirely with renewable, if we put the money allocated to nuclear development directly into renewable I'd say we'd have the majority of the problem fixed in a couple decades.
but it won't fuck with our genetics and it won't contaminate the nature around it
This demonstrates how little you know about the subject matter, there have been extensive studies of the effects on children and adults as a result of the hiroshima and nagazaki bombs. So far they have found nothing out of the ordinary Long-term health effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs not as dire as perceived
This is again, the effects of two nuclear bombs, not reactor waste. Human exposure to radiation is a quite well studied field, and it's mostly negligible, as you're exposed to more radiation from x-rays or plane trips, than any waste product unless you're applying it as lotion.
As for contaminating nature? Nature around Chernobyl is thriving because humans don't go there.
This is also assuming nuclear waste is treated the same going forward. Old reactors use the fuel from 100% to 97%, in which case the fuel is "spent" and it's stored. Modern reactors can utilize almost all of the old waste from 100-97% down to 1% which gives the waste a half life of roughly 90 years, in which case it can be safely buried.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
