Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
11-26-2011, 01:45 AM, (This post was last modified: 11-26-2011, 01:51 AM by rsol.)
#61
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
fair play. although "apologist" is a rather one-sided term for anyone thinking nukes have viability in energy.

Im amoral on the subject. a personal reactor could power a home for life with very little in the way of maintenance and shielding is a much easier proposition these days. unviable as an expense.

nuclear is in its infancy. such things as waste must be addressed for it to ever really be truly viable. personally i think the whole energy generation equation needs a rethink. most power plants are glorified kettles. hardly cutting edge. what do we do? change the fuel that heats the water. ohhh how very scientific.... power stations are big, expensive, inefficient and unhealthy. proper sustainable energy requires every house to think about powering themselves. would be good for the economics of the planet for all concerned. even the rich dicks.
Reply
11-26-2011, 02:07 AM,
#62
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
(11-26-2011, 01:45 AM)rsol Wrote: fair play. although "apologist" is a rather one-sided term for anyone thinking nukes have viability in energy.

OK, but people who are lobbying for nuclear power by lying through omission are apologists or worse, which is who I was referring to. You're talking about people who are victims of apologist propaganda.

[Image: randquote.png]
Reply
11-26-2011, 10:25 AM,
#63
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
see "lying through omission" could also mean "dont know everything" and when it comes to technology.....the past is irrelevant in many cases. Only something to be learned rather than used as a rule.

People drive cars with a constant explosive reaction going on in their vehicles. health problems, death ra ra ra. oh yeah....its subsidised tooSmile should the internal combustion engine stay on the drawing board?

My point is that the issues raised so far have been stuck in a circle. I would like to make present nuke power a thing of the past but I wont be excluding it in totality in the future. horses for courses. everything has a place.
Reply
11-26-2011, 12:56 PM,
#64
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
Get the government to strictly enforce property rights and get it out of the energy industry and there is NO WAY any insurance company would be able to cover the cost of a nuclear accident. No more nuclear reactors. Problem solved. I'm serious, only through subsidies, special treatment, special laws written for the industry, government lobbyism, corruption, government backroom deals and plain criminal action could a nuclear powerplant EVER be financially viable.
Reply
11-26-2011, 03:24 PM,
#65
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
(11-26-2011, 10:25 AM)rsol Wrote: "lying through omission" could also mean "dont know everything" and when it comes to technology

I don't use that definition. You are the first I've heard who does.

Here are 2 examples of how nuclear propagandists lie through omission:

1) They claim nuclear power is cheaper than it really is by excluding the enormous costs of mining, refining, transporting and storing uranium. They ignore the huge costs of plant decommissioning. They ignore the massive subsidies given by governments to private companies who build and maintain the plants. They ignore the costs of cleanups. I could go on but you get the idea.

2) They claim nuclear radiation is safe by comparing background radiation levels. This form of radiation is far less important than the real dangers the nuclear industries create: ingestion of radioactive particles.
[Image: randquote.png]
Reply
11-27-2011, 10:45 AM, (This post was last modified: 11-27-2011, 12:29 PM by p4r4.)
#66
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
(11-26-2011, 03:24 PM)yeti Wrote:
(11-26-2011, 10:25 AM)rsol Wrote: "lying through omission" could also mean "dont know everything" and when it comes to technology

I don't use that definition. You are the first I've heard who does.

Here are 2 examples of how nuclear propagandists lie through omission:

1) They claim nuclear power is cheaper than it really is by excluding the enormous costs of mining, refining, transporting and storing uranium. They ignore the huge costs of plant decommissioning. They ignore the massive subsidies given by governments to private companies who build and maintain the plants. They ignore the costs of cleanups. I could go on but you get the idea.

2) They claim nuclear radiation is safe by comparing background radiation levels. This form of radiation is far less important than the real dangers the nuclear industries create: ingestion of radioactive particles.

I got more "propaganda" charts for the ignorant...

[Image: US_Electricity_Production_Costs.png]
source: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

I recommend you check that link for the in depth analysis of the economic aspect.

As for ingesting radioactive material, you are better off with the nuclear power plants compared to the coal plants that spew much more radioactive ash in the environment, check the article in previous posts...
Reply
11-27-2011, 12:02 PM,
#67
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
if you look at the small print on that graph it says:

Quote:Production costs = Operations, Maintenance + Fuel. Production costs do not include indirect costs or capital.

"indirect costs" is reassuringly vague
Reply
11-27-2011, 05:45 PM,
#68
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
The source of your chart is the NEI, a nuclear industry lobby group. The chart does exactly what I said the propagandists do - excludes real costs.

Why are you trying to rebut my argument by providing evidence which proves my point?

(11-27-2011, 10:45 AM)p4r4 Wrote: you are better off with the nuclear power plants compared to the coal plants that spew much more radioactive ash in the environment

Coal plants with scrubbers put no ash into the atmosphere. Almost all coal plants have scrubbers by law.

[Image: randquote.png]
Reply
11-27-2011, 07:48 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-27-2011, 08:08 PM by p4r4.)
#69
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
(11-27-2011, 05:45 PM)yeti Wrote: The source of your chart is the NEI, a nuclear industry lobby group. The chart does exactly what I said the propagandists do - excludes real costs.

Why are you trying to rebut my argument by providing evidence which proves my point?

(11-27-2011, 10:45 AM)p4r4 Wrote: you are better off with the nuclear power plants compared to the coal plants that spew much more radioactive ash in the environment

Coal plants with scrubbers put no ash into the atmosphere. Almost all coal plants have scrubbers by law.




You sound like a coal lobbyist yourself. Scrubbers are not removing all the ash from the emissions and a lot of the filtered shit by the scrubbers end up in the ground water.







A Case Study: The Side Effects of a Coal Plant

A 500 megawatt coal plant produces 3.5 billion kilowatt-hours per year, enough to power a city of about 140,000 people. It burns 1,430,000 tons of coal, uses 2.2 billion gallons of water and 146,000 tons of limestone.

It also puts out, each year:

10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide (SOx) is the main cause of acid rain, which damages forests, lakes and buildings.

10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide. Nitrogen oxide (NOx) is a major cause of smog, and also a cause of acid rain.

3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main greenhouse gas, and is the leading cause of global warming. There are no regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S.

500 tons of small particles. Small particulates are a health hazard, causing lung damage. Particulates smaller than 10 microns are not regulated, but may be soon.

220 tons of hydrocarbons. Fossil fuels are made of hydrocarbons; when they don't burn completely, they are released into the air. They are a cause of smog.

720 tons of carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a poisonous gas and contributor to global warming.

125,000 tons of ash and 193,000 tons of sludge from the smokestack scrubber. A scrubber uses powdered limestone and water to remove pollution from the plant's exhaust. Instead of going into the air, the pollution goes into a landfill or into products like concrete and drywall. This ash and sludge consists of coal ash, limestone, and many pollutants, such as toxic metals like lead and mercury.

225 pounds of arsenic, 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, and many other toxic heavy metals. Mercury emissions from coal plants are suspected of contaminating lakes and rivers in northern and northeast states and Canada. In Wisconsin alone, more than 200 lakes and rivers are contaminated with mercury. Health officials warn against eating fish caught in these waters, since mercury can cause birth defects, brain damage and other ailments. Acid rain also causes mercury poisoning by leaching mercury from rocks and making it available in a form that can be taken up by organisms.

Trace elements of uranium. All but 16 of the 92 naturally occurring elements have been detected in coal, mostly as trace elements below 0.1 percent (1,000 parts per million, or ppm). A study by DOE's Oak Ridge National Lab found that radioactive emissions from coal combustion are greater than those from nuclear power production.


The 2.2 billion gallons of water it uses for cooling is raised 16 degrees F on average before being discharged into a lake or river. By warming the water year-round it changes the habitat of that body of water.

Coal mining creates tons of hazardous and acidic waste which can contaminate ground water. Strip mining also destroys habitat and can affect water tables. Underground mining is a hazard to water quality and to coal miners. In the mid-1970s, the fatality rate for underground miners was 0.4 per million tons of coal -- one miner would be killed every two years to supply our 500 MW plant. The disabling injury rate was 38 people per million tons -- 106 miners would be disabled every two years to supply this plant. Since coal mining is much more automated now, there are many fewer coal miners, and thus many fewer deaths and injuries.

Transportation of coal is typically by rail and barge; much coal now comes from the coal basins of Wyoming and the West. Injuries from coal transportation (such as at train crossing accidents) are estimated to cause 450 deaths and 6800 injuries per year. Transporting enough coal to supply just this one 500 MW plant requires 14,300 train cars. That's 40 cars of coal per day.

source: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/brief_coal.html

radioactive coal ash: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
Reply
11-28-2011, 12:17 PM,
#70
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
im just wondering if those in the coal industry put all those figures down as indirect costs. I wonder if the oil industry put in the costs warfare into their equations?

I am not a nuke apologist or champion. personally I am a private power person. Any power industry not producing products for people to use are part of the problem of compartmentalisation. Before when people used to make sails. no one charged for the wind...
Reply
11-28-2011, 12:26 PM,
#71
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
Again, just enforce property rights including payments to owners of polluted property, end all wars and then let's see what the market decides what the best and most effective form of energy is.
Reply
11-29-2011, 12:07 AM, (This post was last modified: 11-29-2011, 12:19 AM by sekular.)
#72
RE: Why humans keep building nuclear power plants?
I used to live near a nuclear plant and an oil refinery. The oil refinery used to pollute the area realy bad and a lot of the children grew up with asthma, the town also had loads of alarm towers. Occasionally they would have a test and they would say an emergency broadcast.

http://g.co/maps/3dk6r

here is the emergency towers.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Gaza ‘miracle baby’, born after mother’s death, dies of complications amid power cuts bristopen 0 203 08-01-2014, 09:38 AM
Last Post: bristopen
  Something tells me we're not going to have any planes flying into THIS NYC building h3rm35 0 359 09-19-2012, 10:59 PM
Last Post: h3rm35
  Power of Reverse Speech - Please Stay Stupid Yakhont26 28 3,655 12-10-2010, 03:10 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
Wink the power of Bob Marley drummer 3 821 12-08-2010, 07:10 PM
Last Post: SiLVa
  After enrichment, Iran in pursuit of nuclear fusion joeblow 0 381 10-27-2009, 11:20 PM
Last Post: joeblow
  Ron Greenslade, The Daily Express, Deadly Cancer Jabs And How Global Warming Triggers Nuclear War --- 0 456 10-10-2009, 06:04 PM
Last Post: ---
  L.A. Federal Building Standoff April 7 1,187 08-14-2009, 07:44 AM
Last Post: mastermg
  The power of technology - such as blogs - meant that the world could no longer be run by "elites" mexika 1 502 07-22-2009, 08:01 AM
Last Post: mexika
  67 US nuclear computers 'go missing' TriWooOx 0 433 02-14-2009, 11:00 AM
Last Post: TriWooOx
  Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse hilly7 9 1,365 02-13-2009, 04:55 PM
Last Post: ---

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)