Printable View
Absolutely... it seems to be a rule of life ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Blue
Big homophobic stance and pushing for laws outlawing homosexuality, turns out to be a closet homosexual.
Big "family is sacred" stance and trying to outlaw divorce, turns out to have at least one extra-marital affair.
Big "Israel is evil and should be wiped off the map" stance and denying the holocaust, turns out to be of Jewish origins.
Actually, I would argue that even if every reactor in the world was shut down tomorrow, it would not change the proliferation problem. IMO, proliferation is not driven by a need for energy, but by a need for power - military and political. A commercial power plant is generally not considered to be the easiest source of material, and in fact the US had no reactors in operation during the Manhattan project. Britain did not have any reactors to speak of immediately after WWII either, yet they still were able to process material. By "reactors," I mean those actually intended to produce power; both nations had special purpose "reactors" designed for the sinister purpose of simply making bombs.Quote:
Originally Posted by singlewedge
The terrifying truth is that this knowledge is out there, and there's no way to erase it. The ONLY way to make the world safe would be to travel back in time and change the course of history so that the bomb was never made. Then again, there would be no chemotherapy, no MRI, no PET scan, etc...
The comforting truth is that in most cases, when a nation pursues manufacturing nuclear weapons, those involved generally don't plan on using them preemptively. Even North Korea wouldn't do something that stupid, the backlash would be as severe as it was catastrophic (as in, there might not be any North Korea left). In Iran's case, I think it's a bit less clear whether there would be plans to use said weapons, which is why the threat is being taken more seriously.
EDIT: Forgot to add that IMO, this is not our deal. I don't think it's our nation's job to deal with this problem. I don't want to see any more dead US soldiers, and I don't think military action would soothe Iran's anger any more than rubbing salt in an open would would make it feel better.
Nuclear is still one of the better options. If you are worried about radioactivity, better stop using coal powered energy plants, which blast large amounts of radioactive dust in the atmosphere nonstop.Quote:
Originally Posted by singlewedge
Very true. Coal releases a ton of radioactivity and no one bats an eye about it. In fact, if I remember correctly, when all is said and done coal kills more people per year than Chernobyl ever did. I really think Chernobyl ruined nuclear power too. It should never have happened, and frankly the design wasn't considered safe by the scientists who built it (who, by the way were more than capable of making safer designs, as they did).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
It really irks me when people say they want to change the grid and save the planet, but then they bash nuclear energy. To do what they say, they are going to need a power source with a high capacity factor. Wind and solar do not have high capacity factors, even with ultra high tech energy storage systems that haven't been invented yet. The answer to this problem has always been to install extra wind and solar facilities elsewhere to make up for days when wind and solar are not available locally is not an economically viable one IMO. I have yet to see a total price tag for wind and solar energy that factors in these redundant facilities, but usually buying something twice to get it once is an expensive proposition.
At best, we could end up with a near-zero carbon grid with a mix of all the renewables, and a fairly strong nuclear base. In this capacity, the renewables could completely replace all the peaking turbines and generators scattered across the country, as well as provide a fair amount of "base load" electricity.
Personally, while I think "clean coal" technology is just a bunch of green washing, I think it would be awesome if someone really did figure out an affordable way to trap the C02 emitted, and while they were at it, they capture the uranium that was inherently present in the coal. Then take that uranium and feed reactors.
Oh, and the problem NO ONE is talking about, is electric vehicles. If a significant portion of the vehicles on the road were to go all electric, we would have an energy shortage to end all energy shortages...
end :soapbox:
The Belgians! Really Mark, have you been drinking?;)Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
I think the earth is a small enough place that if anyone has a nuke it should be a concern to the rest of the world. I think ALL nations should do away with nukes and programs to research such weapons. I just don't forsee that happening as there will always be power hungry people in the world.
Agreed, if Israel is provoked, they will, I believe kill ruthlessly...it'll be a freakin' blood bath!Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
Sure, lots of Israelis will die, but they won't stop til they're dead.
I fully agree. People are scared of nuclear power, when they shouldn't be. It's safe, clean, cheap, and lasts a heck of a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Negligence in the past has ruined it in many people's eyes.