The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Blanko on October 15, 2014, 07:35:23 PM
-
[NOTE: this thread was split from Yaakov's party poll thread]
Green Parties are quite hilarious in that they tend to be anti-nuclear, which ironically in many cases makes them the least green parties of their respective countries.
-
Green Parties are quite hilarious in that they tend to be anti-nuclear, which ironically in many cases makes them the least green parties of their respective countries.
How? Nuclear energy is a risk to the environment and humanity itself, at least to them. Seems pretty green to me.
-
[...]at least to them.
Well, yeah. Unfortunately they're wrong about that.
-
[...]at least to them.
Well, yeah. Unfortunately they're wrong about that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
Please show me how this was good for the environment.
-
[...]at least to them.
Well, yeah. Unfortunately they're wrong about that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
Please show me how this was good for the environment.
Are you under the impression that modern nuclear power plants are as unsafe as Chernobyl, which was shoddy even by Soviet standards? Fukushima was hit by two massive natural disasters and resulted in zero casualties and the radiation leaks were so minimal that it's unlikely to cause any complications for anyone in the future. Those are the only two noteworthy nuclear accidents in history and one of them is a perfect demonstration of how safe nuclear power actually is. Meanwhile, coal mining is incredibly dangerous and has historically claimed tens of thousands of lives, and coal power is, of course, massively worse for the environment than nuclear power. Yet green parties are insistent on keeping coal plants in operation by lobbying against building of nuclear plants to replace them.
-
Are you saying you know all the equipment used and conditions of each nuclear power plant across the Earth? I'm really impressed.
If anything, Fukushima showed us that nuclear power plants are even more of a liability because natural disasters can trigger radiation leaks and even meltdowns. Just because it hasn't happened on a large scale like Chernobyl since doesn't mean it won't happen again.
-
Yes, never mind that we're perfectly aware of what risks coal power involves, but nuclear power might by some miniscule chance come close to being even remotely as lethal, so let's never use it! That sounds perfectly reasonable, let's just continue to destroy the environment some more.
No, really, that must be the thought process behind it. It's literally apocalypse scenario scare tactics, which somehow is enough to blatantly ignore massive mine disasters and the effect coal power plants have on the environment.
-
Coal power is a different issue. Wtf are you talking about?
-
No, it isn't. If we're not building nuclear power plants, coal plants will remain dominant. That's the main issue.
-
No, it isn't. If we're not building nuclear power plants, coal plants will remain dominant. That's the main issue.
Yes it is, and you're ignoring the main points.
Do you think nuclear power is good for the environment? yes/no
Coal power has nothing to do with the argument, at least not part of the discussion that we're having. There are other forms of alternative power. If it was a perfect world we wouldn't be using coal or nuclear power. You said that Green parties are not green because of their views on nuclear power. Are you saying that they're wrong for thinking nuclear power has a negative impact on the environment? If so, why?
-
Do you think nuclear power is good for the environment? yes/no
Yes, because replacing coal power is a net positive.
There are other forms of alternative power. If it was a perfect world we wouldn't be using coal or nuclear power.
Yes, things would be a whole lot better if they were perfect.
You said that Green parties are not green because of their views on nuclear power. Are you saying that they're wrong for thinking nuclear power has a negative impact on the environment? If so, why?
No, I'm saying that not building nuclear power plants has the direct result of keeping coal plants in operation, which is terrible for the environment. Producing electricity is never going to be "good" for the environment, but we need it, and some methods of production are much better than others. Nuclear power happens to be one of the better ones, so opposing it is not environmentally conscious.
-
I thought you meant green as in the color usually associated with radiation.
-
So nuclear power is good for the environment . Gotcha. ::)
-
So nuclear power is good for the environment . Gotcha. ::)
If there is no accident and the waste is disposed of properly, yes.
Most of the earth is made of magma. It is filled with radio active materials. It is one of the reasons the earth has not cooled to a solid yet. This is what made Lord Kelvin get the age of earth so monumentally wrong. He didn't know about radioactivity. Don't be scared, it sounds bad, but most of the earth is already radioactive. Lrn2perspective.
-
I'm sure the people impacted by Chernobyl would totally agree with you because "coal power is worse". That totally makes up for the radioactive fallout that changed the environment in the surrounding area for the worst for decades to come, causing infertility, killing vegetation and wildlife, and creating what we now call the "Red Forest". But that's all ok because coal power is worse.
-
I'm sure the people impacted by Chernobyl would totally agree with you because "coal power is worse". That totally makes up for the radioactive fallout that changed the environment in the surrounding area for the worst for decades to come, causing infertility, killing vegetation and wildlife, and creating what we now call the "Red Forest". But that's all ok because coal power is worse.
Again, perspective. It was one accident in a very small localised part of the world. Ruining a small area of land has to be preferable to ruining the air quality for millions of people and provoking diseases like asthma.
-
Sorry Thork, but I have a personal rule never to engage in an argument with you.
-
tfw Thork is more sensible than Vauxy
-
... coming from someone who thinks that nuclear power is good for the environment because "coal is worse".
I believe they call that moving the goalpost because you still haven't answered the question.
Is nuclear power good for the environment?
-
::)
-
Is nuclear power good for the environment?
-
... coming from someone who thinks that nuclear power is good for the environment because "coal is worse".
I believe they call that moving the goalpost because you still haven't answered the question.
Is nuclear power good for the environment?
So you refused to refute the argument that nuclear is better than alternatives and then insulted someone's intelligence for not holding the same belief that you seem unable to put into a post? How do you expect people to agree with you, when you can't form a coherent argument?
-
I believe nuclear power is a better alternative than coal power, but we are using both forms of power now... so we're doubly fucked.
-
::)
-
I believe nuclear power is a better alternative than coal power, but we are using both forms of power now... so we're doubly fucked.
It is called energy security. You can't have all your power coming from one source. Especially if something like Uranium doesn't occur naturally in your country. A war could see the lights go out and you'd have lost it before a bullet was fired.
What alternatives do you have in mind?
-
Any time you attempt to harness a large amount of energy in one location, it's bad for the environment.
There is literally no form of energy collection in the world that does not cause harm to the environment in some way. Nuclear power is, at least, the best bang for the risk.
-
It is still bad for the environment, and Blanko makes it seem like Green parties aren't aware of the problems caused by coal power. As if Blanko is the only one privy to this sacred knowledge. ::)
As far as alternatives to both, I have none. But that doesn't change the fact that both are potentially terrible for the environment.
-
It is still bad for the environment, and Blanko makes it seem like Green parties aren't aware of the problems caused by coal power. As if Blanko is the only one privy to this sacred knowledge. ::)
As far as alternatives to both, I have none. But that doesn't change the fact that both are potentially terrible for the environment.
Yeah but as Fukishima taught us, it takes a tsunami and an earth quake to damage 1/4 of a plant enough to leak partially lethal radiation.
So it's all about location.
-
Or various equipment malfunctions and employee errors. Or are humans infallible now?
-
As far as alternatives to both, I have none. But that doesn't change the fact that both are potentially terrible for the environment.
Define environment. My environment is a warm house with lighting and power, for useful tools like the kettle and the hoover. not having power would be far worse for most people's environment. It would kill millions and make life uncomfortable for the rest. Its not terrible for the environment. It just has drawbacks. Its not perfect. Very few things in life are.
-
Or various equipment malfunctions and employee errors. Or are humans infallible now?
The number of safety backups in place is good enough to make both equipment AND human error highly unlikely.
Let me put it this way: You would be very hard pressed to break a nuclear power plant by yourself.
-
Or various equipment malfunctions and employee errors. Or are humans infallible now?
The number of safety backups in place is good enough to make both equipment AND human error highly unlikely.
Let me put it this way: You would be very hard pressed to break a nuclear power plant by yourself.
Dave, have a word with yourself.
-
Or various equipment malfunctions and employee errors. Or are humans infallible now?
The number of safety backups in place is good enough to make both equipment AND human error highly unlikely.
Let me put it this way: You would be very hard pressed to break a nuclear power plant by yourself.
Dave, have a word with yourself.
Why? Are you saying that I should know that you can break a nuclear power plant with ease?
-
Or various equipment malfunctions and employee errors. Or are humans infallible now?
The number of safety backups in place is good enough to make both equipment AND human error highly unlikely.
Let me put it this way: You would be very hard pressed to break a nuclear power plant by yourself.
Dave, have a word with yourself.
Why? Are you saying that I should know that you can break a nuclear power plant with ease?
I'm saying that stating the blindingly obvious isn't helping to move the debate along. Especially when it isn't relevant.
-
It is still bad for the environment, and Blanko makes it seem like Green parties aren't aware of the problems caused by coal power.
I would hope they aren't, because otherwise they couldn't be educated and are simply being willfully obtuse. There is no environmentally conscious way to rationalize the use of coal power we have today. Nuclear power is objectively a far more environmentally friendly method of production, and thus it should be favoured.
As if Blanko is the only one privy to this sacred knowledge. ::)
::)
I'm loving these memefaces.
-
Or various equipment malfunctions and employee errors. Or are humans infallible now?
The number of safety backups in place is good enough to make both equipment AND human error highly unlikely.
Let me put it this way: You would be very hard pressed to break a nuclear power plant by yourself.
Dave, have a word with yourself.
Why? Are you saying that I should know that you can break a nuclear power plant with ease?
I'm saying that stating the blindingly obvious isn't helping to move the debate along. Especially when it isn't relevant.
I'm not sure there is a debate.
All forms of energy production will destroy the environment around the power plant if something goes wrong. (or as a normal effect of operation.) Singling out one is just pointless.
-
::)
gdi Lord Dave you messed up my 'memeface'
And no, there was no debate to begin with. Blanko still has yet to admit that nuclear power is bad for the environment, because "coal is worse". That was never the point.
-
Or various equipment malfunctions and employee errors. Or are humans infallible now?
The number of safety backups in place is good enough to make both equipment AND human error highly unlikely.
Let me put it this way: You would be very hard pressed to break a nuclear power plant by yourself.
Dave, have a word with yourself.
Why? Are you saying that I should know that you can break a nuclear power plant with ease?
I'm saying that stating the blindingly obvious isn't helping to move the debate along. Especially when it isn't relevant.
I'm not sure there is a debate.
All forms of energy production will destroy the environment around the power plant if something goes wrong. (or as a normal effect of operation.) Singling out one is just pointless.
No, what you said is an individual would have a hard time breaking a power plant.
Anyhoo, all forms of power change an environment. I think 'destroy' is a strong word. More like changes. Take the hydro plant in China. The three gorges dam. Seems like a reasonable way to harness 'clean power'. But it actually changes the local weather.
http://esd.lbl.gov/files/about/staff/normanmiller/MillerJinTsang-GRL22Aug05.pdf
Environmentalists are up in arms. But realisitically, they got exactly what they asked for and then weren't happy.
Energy by its nature is harnessed by a rate of change. So something has to happen and you need to leech a bit of that to store power. So you can't complain when something changes. Coal into soot, uranium into a depleted isotope, the distribution of water in an area, the local wind near a wind farm. The key is just to find the solution that will bother you the least. and most of the time, that's nuclear.
-
A power plant that harnesses solar from space and sends it back to Earth with microwave lasers would have a fairly small environmental impact.
-
A power plant that harnesses solar from space and sends it back to Earth with microwave lasers would have a fairly small environmental impact.
Except for heating up the surrounding air and killing any bird that passes through.
-
A power plant that harnesses solar from space and sends it back to Earth with microwave lasers would have a fairly small environmental impact.
Except for heating up the surrounding air and killing any bird that passes through.
And aircraft passengers.
-
A power plant that harnesses solar from space and sends it back to Earth with microwave lasers would have a fairly small environmental impact.
Except for heating up the surrounding air and killing any bird that passes through.
And aircraft passengers.
Well, I would assume planes would avoid such areas.
Though just imagine how easy such a "power plant" would be to turn into a deadly weapon.
"Oops, we accidentally put the deadly solar beam over Iran. Well, no need to worry about those nuclear weapons now..."
-
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power)
At the Earth's surface, a suggested microwave beam would have a maximum intensity at its center, of 23 mW/cm2 (less than 1/4 the solar irradiation constant), and an intensity of less than 1 mW/cm2 outside the rectenna fenceline (the receiver's perimeter).[73] These compare with current United States Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) workplace exposure limits for microwaves, which are 10 mW/cm2,[74] - the limit itself being expressed in voluntary terms and ruled unenforceable for Federal OSHA enforcement purposes.[citation needed] A beam of this intensity is therefore at its center, of a similar magnitude to current safe workplace levels, even for long term or indefinite exposure. Outside the receiver, it is far less than the OSHA long-term levels[75] Over 95% of the beam energy will fall on the rectenna. The remaining microwave energy will be absorbed and dispersed well within standards currently imposed upon microwave emissions around the world.
-
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power)
At the Earth's surface, a suggested microwave beam would have a maximum intensity at its center, of 23 mW/cm2 (less than 1/4 the solar irradiation constant), and an intensity of less than 1 mW/cm2 outside the rectenna fenceline (the receiver's perimeter).[73] These compare with current United States Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) workplace exposure limits for microwaves, which are 10 mW/cm2,[74] - the limit itself being expressed in voluntary terms and ruled unenforceable for Federal OSHA enforcement purposes.[citation needed] A beam of this intensity is therefore at its center, of a similar magnitude to current safe workplace levels, even for long term or indefinite exposure. Outside the receiver, it is far less than the OSHA long-term levels[75] Over 95% of the beam energy will fall on the rectenna. The remaining microwave energy will be absorbed and dispersed well within standards currently imposed upon microwave emissions around the world.
Is that milliwatts?
-
Per square cm, yes. So a 230MW power station would take up 10,000,000cm2, or 1,000m2, or a quarter acre, which would power about 75,000 homes.
EDIT: If you look at how big a solar, wind, or tidal plant has to be to produce that power, and it doesn't produce 24 hours a day, the size is quite reasonable. Also, please check my math if you think it may be inaccurate, it very well might be.
Also Thork, really? Aircraft passengers? A thin piece of metal with holes in it stops microwaves from getting out, I think an aircraft hull would do a sufficient job.
-
I'll take the party I have 1 or 2 policy disagreements with over a party I have 3092402394 policy disagreements with.
-
At the Earth's surface, a suggested microwave beam would have a maximum intensity at its center, of 23 mW/cm2 (less than 1/4 the solar irradiation constant), and an intensity of less than 1 mW/cm2 outside the rectenna fenceline (the receiver's perimeter).[73] These compare with current United States Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) workplace exposure limits for microwaves, which are 10 mW/cm2,[74] - the limit itself being expressed in voluntary terms and ruled unenforceable for Federal OSHA enforcement purposes.[citation needed] A beam of this intensity is therefore at its center, of a similar magnitude to current safe workplace levels, even for long term or indefinite exposure. Outside the receiver, it is far less than the OSHA long-term levels[75] Over 95% of the beam energy will fall on the rectenna. The remaining microwave energy will be absorbed and dispersed well within standards currently imposed upon microwave emissions around the world.
And think that nuclear power conspiracies are bad. I can't imagine what they'd say when the gubmint starts launching microwave satellites.
-
Is nuclear power good for the environment?
Yes. Continue.
-
And no, there was no debate to begin with. Blanko still has yet to admit that nuclear power is bad for the environment, because "coal is worse". That was never the point.
No, Vauxy, you don't get to pick what "the point" is because I started the conversation with my conditions. You seem to be insistent on saying that because nuclear power is potentially bad (very unlikely), we should instead be content with sticking to coal power until the distant future when renewable energy might become feasible. Otherwise, the matter of whether or not nuclear power is "bad for the environment" (it's not, and I've already said this), is completely irrelevant to the topic, as the main issue to consider is what's better for the environment.
The bottom line is, if with your stance you are enabling the use of coal power in favour of nuclear power, you are not considering what is better for the environment. And the way you do that is by opposing the building of nuclear plants.
-
Nuclear power will never overcome the stigma that it's a giant nuke ready to go off at any moment. As unlikely as that is, people don't want a reactor within a fatal radius of them. Solar will probably be the primary energy source in the coming decades.
-
Otherwise, the matter of whether or not nuclear power is "bad for the environment" (it's not, and I've already said this)
Right, the 20-40 tons of radioactive waste generated annually per reactor is great for the environment. Especially when that waste has a 10,000 year half life and will ultimately corrode any container it is stored in.
I am a proponent of nuclear energy, though. It is cleaner for our immediate needs, and more efficient. It is also what the cool kids use.
-
My stance isn't doing anything other than stating that nuclear power is bad for the environment. Which it is. Coal power being worse doesn't make nuclear power good for the environment no matter what you think. Nuclear AND coal power are being used to this day in tandem regardless.
Please explain the positive benefits of the Chernobyl disaster on the environment.
-
My stance isn't doing anything other than stating that nuclear power is bad for the environment. Which it is. Coal power being worse doesn't make nuclear power good for the environment no matter what you think. Nuclear AND coal power are being used to this day in tandem regardless.
Please explain the positive benefits of the Chernobyl disaster on the environment.
Okay, your stance isn't relevant and I've already told you that. Go Rushy somewhere else.
-
My stance isn't doing anything other than stating that nuclear power is bad for the environment. Which it is. Coal power being worse doesn't make nuclear power good for the environment no matter what you think. Nuclear AND coal power are being used to this day in tandem regardless.
Please explain the positive benefits of the Chernobyl disaster on the environment.
Okay, your stance isn't relevant and I've already told you that. Go Rushy somewhere else.
What were you expecting, some brilliant epiphany about alternative power? Coal power is bad for the environment. Nuclear power is bad for the environment. Do I have any idea how to reduce our dependence on these forms of power? No I don't. Good talk.
-
My stance isn't doing anything other than stating that nuclear power is bad for the environment. Which it is. Coal power being worse doesn't make nuclear power good for the environment no matter what you think. Nuclear AND coal power are being used to this day in tandem regardless.
Please explain the positive benefits of the Chernobyl disaster on the environment.
Okay, your stance isn't relevant and I've already told you that. Go Rushy somewhere else.
What were you expecting, some brilliant epiphany about alternative power? Coal power is bad for the environment. Nuclear power is bad for the environment. Do I have any idea how to reduce our dependence on these forms of power? No I don't. Good talk.
Great contribution.
-
My stance isn't doing anything other than stating that nuclear power is bad for the environment. Which it is. Coal power being worse doesn't make nuclear power good for the environment no matter what you think. Nuclear AND coal power are being used to this day in tandem regardless.
Please explain the positive benefits of the Chernobyl disaster on the environment.
Okay, your stance isn't relevant and I've already told you that. Go Rushy somewhere else.
What were you expecting, some brilliant epiphany about alternative power? Coal power is bad for the environment. Nuclear power is bad for the environment. Do I have any idea how to reduce our dependence on these forms of power? No I don't. Good talk.
Human civilization is bad for the environment. It's about developing technology that is less bad than alternatives.
-
I agree.