[Ghost of V]

Is nuclear power good for the environment?

[Thork]

... 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?

[Ghost of V]

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.

[Blanko]

 

[Thork]

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?

[Lord Dave]

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.

[Ghost of V]

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.

[Lord Dave]

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.

[Ghost of V]

Or various equipment malfunctions and employee errors. Or are humans infallible now?

[Thork]

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.

[Lord Dave]

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. 

[Thork]

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.

[Lord Dave]

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?

[Thork]

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.

[Blanko]

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.

[Lord Dave]

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.

[Ghost of V]

 

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.

[Thork]

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.

[EnigmaZV]

A power plant that harnesses solar from space and sends it back to Earth with microwave lasers would have a fairly small environmental impact.

[Lord Dave]

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.