|
Riso posted:No seriously, it is significantly easier to just use Thorium power. It is a common element that would last us about 14 billion years and is a byproduct of rare earth production. Thorium is also a heavy metal and as such highly toxic to human beings. Which means it has the same problems like Plutonium, or Uran, or generally every element we want to stick into a fission reactor. At least if we choke to death on ash from our fossil power plants the pain and suffering is over, with growing amounts of everlasting toxic and radioactive elements hiding out in some salt mines the pain and suffering gets deposited on our bank account and starts accumulating lots of interest. Which is why nuclear power is bad, even though it looks totally harmless and clean to some people. People who like to be perpetually wrong, it seems.
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:28 |
|
|
Libluini posted:At least if we choke to death on ash from our fossil power plants the pain and suffering is over
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Thorium is also a heavy metal and as such highly toxic to human beings. Which means it has the same problems like Plutonium, or Uran, or generally every element we want to stick into a fission reactor. At least if we choke to death on ash from our fossil power plants the pain and suffering is over, with growing amounts of everlasting toxic and radioactive elements hiding out in some salt mines the pain and suffering gets deposited on our bank account and starts accumulating lots of interest. It is a heavy metal and it is toxic but it is not nearly as dangerous as Plutonium or Uranium. The radioactivity is only alpha and not gamma particles so you do not require as intensive/significant precautions. Unlike Pu and U you also don't have to put in a lot of effort to prepare it to be useful at all. You also have to consider we are already digging up lots of heavy metals for our modern gadgets and Th is the biggest waste product. We might as well use it when we've dug it out and separated it from the rare earths. Plus even conventional nuclear waste is not completely useless. The remains of atomic testing produced power sources we used in space probes and modern medicine requires various isotopes to fight cancer which we are only able to get from reactor waste. I am not claiming it's a perfect solution but it is rather easy to do compared to Fusion and does not require us to use even rarer fossil and more dangerous Pu/U fuels. The alternative, so called renewable energy sources have the problem of intermittency and power storage. Maybe once technology gets better but in the meantime we have to make do with what we have. The fusion power lovers should consider that it's also pretty easy to produce fissile material for weapons. Riso fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Apr 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Riso posted:It is a heavy metal and it is toxic but it is not nearly as dangerous as Plutonium or Uranium. The radioactivity is only alpha and not gamma particles so you do not require as intensive/significant precautions. Unlike Pu and U you also don't have to put in a lot of effort to prepare it to be useful at all. Neither geothermal energy nor several types of renewable energy involving burning trash/plant oil have problems with intermittency or power storage. Especially the already up and running hydro-thermal geothermal power plants (man that's a mouthful) have no problem at all with both. (Their main drawback is not producing enough electricity. On the other hand, they're better for heating than every other alternative, so it equals out in the end.) I'll give you it's probably better to use stuff like Thorium instead of throwing it back into the mining shaft again, but not by creating nuclear waste for use in space probes and medicine. Because I'm looking here at the huge mountains of really dangerous stuff we're hiding in nuclear waste repositories and it doesn't look like we could find a way to use that stuff up before the empty space runs out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Since we all agreed we didn't want this discussion, here's a different beat: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/mitte-studie-auslaenderfeindliche-einstellungen-in-bayern-weit-verbreitet-1.2423644
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
wayfinder posted:Since we all agreed we didn't want this discussion, here's a different beat: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/mitte-studie-auslaenderfeindliche-einstellungen-in-bayern-weit-verbreitet-1.2423644 I have my saw ready, let's cut off Bavaria from Germany finally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Color me shocked. "Die Juden arbeiten mehr als andere Menschen mit üblen Tricks, um das zu erreichen, was sie wollen." Somehow I doubt that there is a big Jewish community in Bayern, so how could 12% of the population possibly know that? I
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
What's the percentage of muslims in Bavaria?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Thorium is also a heavy metal and as such highly toxic to human beings. Which means it has the same problems like Plutonium, or Uran, or generally every element we want to stick into a fission reactor. At least if we choke to death on ash from our fossil power plants the pain and suffering is over, with growing amounts of everlasting toxic and radioactive elements hiding out in some salt mines the pain and suffering gets deposited on our bank account and starts accumulating lots of interest. Jesus Christ, dude, please don't verkauf us so hard for dumm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
other noted heavy metals: gold, platinum, lead we should certainly abolish all these materials from our societies¨ libluini, educate yourself, this poo poo is weak. nuclear waste is A Problem, but it's a problem that's relatively easily resolved by dumping it in a mountain somewhere or putting it under roads or something. it is certainly not a problem even approaching the seriousness of those involved in basically every other means of energy production. in the end, even solar energy is unsustainable, in that they use rare elements that have to be dug out of the ground and exist in finite amounts. nobody's suggesting we switch to a thorium-based diet. petroleum is highly carcinogenic, but that is not why we want to phase it out. you're being hysterical, and you should stop that right away, because this kind of attitude is contributing to an enormous amount of permanent ecological change right now. it's too late for us to change over to a nuclear grid and have that save us from climate change, but closing down existing nuclear sites and depressing the supply of energy only makes the fossil fuel people happy. it is an objectively harmful policy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:The waste is bad, the buildings are contaminated for centuries, and there is the slight chance of a catastrophic event. If we can replace every nuclear power plant with renewable energy sources, we should. After we got rid of coal and gas. But that's a medium to long term issue, the pressing concern is over the burning of fossil fuels. Honestly nuclear waste is overrated, as is low level radiation (lol linear no threshold models). If you're irrationally worried go spend money on breeder reactors which we should do anyway and pass a law saying they must burn existing nuclear waste. loving Russia of all places is successfully burning waste (from weapons production) in commercial breeders now so it can't be that hard. We are a European Union and should take advantage of that fact by shipping any nuclear waste that doesn't go into breeders to Swedish/soon(tm) to be finished Finnish long term waste dumps, which are pretty much in the geologically perfect place without having been relocated to poo poo places by short sighted politicians (see: UK, Germany). As an environmentalist, I consider them sufficiently safe in the long term. Cingulate posted:Also, one of the best German words is certainly "Verspargelung", a term used by overwhelmingly anti-nuclear people to complain about wind power towers. Followed by Vermaisung, a thing that is happening and will worsen (no wait it will turn into Verriesenschilfung) due to our collective anti-nuke boner. Libluini posted:I'll give you it's probably better to use stuff like Thorium instead of throwing it back into the mining shaft again, but not by creating nuclear waste for use in space probes and medicine. Because I'm looking here at the huge mountains of really dangerous stuff we're hiding in nuclear waste repositories and it doesn't look like we could find a way to use that stuff up before the empty space runs out. Most of that is low-to-mid level waste. Every time the country shits a brick about a  nucular waste container leak I end up laughing because it's either not radioactive enough to actually be dangerous or complete bullshit because the stuff glows as much as the average piece of granite (technically radioactive enough to go into a cask if you dropped it in the bin in a nuclear power plant). The amount of actually dangerous stuff that must not ever go anywhere except a Swedish tunnel or a breeder reactor is a small fraction of our excessive amount of nucular wastee:  Renewables definitely preferable to nuke? Lol nope, and the same is true for biomass and too much hydro. Land use is the largest environmental problem after climate change so I'd rather gently caress up a small area completely by pouring concrete for nuclear power plants over it than sprinkle tons of tiny power stations all over the place resulting in a green desert of lovely technically-not-completely-dead disturbed ecosystems.This is still better than coal but don't go pretending nuclear is somehow more unsustainable than plastering tons of renewable generation all over the place. e2: Libluini posted:Thorium is also a heavy metal and as such highly toxic to human beings. Which means it has the same problems like Plutonium, or Uran, or generally every element we want to stick into a fission reactor. At least if we choke to death on ash from our fossil power plants the pain and suffering is over, with growing amounts of everlasting toxic and radioactive elements hiding out in some salt mines the pain and suffering gets deposited on our bank account and starts accumulating lots of interest. Fossil fuel burning releases heavy metals including U spread out all over the Earth's surface instead of neatly packed into a hole, hth Also the Swedish tunnel into clay is safe for pretty much forever (read: as long as the land mass of Scandinavia exists) unless you whack it with a giant asteroid, in which case I don't give a gently caress because an ~extinction level~ asteroid hit is kinda more important than some radioactive dust. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Apr 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 00:55
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Cingulate posted:WE HAD TO PREVENT ANOTHER AUSCHWITZ The only thing I learned from skimming through the wikipedia page on Chernobyl is that nobody has any loving idea how exactly low radiation exposure affects people and cancer rates. quote:Die Langzeitfolgen des Unglücks sind schwer abzuschätzen. Wegen der Unsicherheit vieler Daten und epidemiologischer Modell-Parameter sind alle Voraussagen über zukünftige Morbiditäts- oder Mortalitätszahlen mit Vorsicht zu betrachten. Also, apparently there is a huge thyroid cancer wave correlated with birth years surrounding the Chernobyl cleanup, that I managed to escape narrowly. I'm gonna go and celebrate my narrow escape from death with a cigarette now. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:The only thing I learned from skimming through the wikipedia page on Chernobyl is that nobody has any loving idea how exactly low radiation exposure affects people and cancer rates. Someone needs to put medical records from naturally high background radiation places into an accessible format that an average person can understand (high background radiation being ~natural~ exposures of between several and over 100 mSv/yr, aka between "everyone relocate in an orderly fashion" and " Evacuate everyone yesterday!" if found near a nuclear power plant). Usually, cancer rates are not increased.In addition, kick whoever slashed funding for the US DOE low level radiation experiments in the nuts, they had interesting initial results. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Apr 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Also, apparently there is a huge thyroid cancer wave correlated with birth years surrounding the Chernobyl cleanup, that I managed to escape narrowly. I'm gonna go and celebrate my narrow escape from death with a cigarette now. While Thyroid cancer is obviously bad, it's pretty easy to treat and very few people actually died from that. Also subpar iodine levels in the local diet and regular cancer screenings caused a higher occurence and detection rate of thyroid cancer in the local population. Overall there were less than thirty deaths due to acute radiation sickness immediately following the disaster and after that the numbers get muddy. Nearly 4000 people died in the Bhopal accident and another 500.000 were injured in some form (a bunch of them severely). Over 150.000 (yes, that's 150 thousand) people died in the Banqiao Dam failure. Nobody is talking about closing all Dams and chemical factories though, despite those disasters being much, much worse than Chernobyl. Maybe it's because those happened in India/China and people just don't care what happens 'so far away'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Someone needs to put medical records from naturally high background radiation places into an accessible format that an average person can understand (high background radiation being ~natural~ exposures of between several and over 100 mSv/yr, aka between "everyone relocate in an orderly fashion" and " In general, people do not incorporate cosmic radiation sources like burning stars. A nuclear reactor accident is a little bit different than cosmic radiation, wouldn't you agree? For example, our mushrooms here in ~Bavaria~ are still cesium contaminated, after almost 30 years. Story goes that boar meat needs to be checked with geiger counters before it can be sold on the open market. From time to time they still catch some fucker that is glowing so much that it would put a nuclear submarine reactor to shame. Story also goes that they have to dispose them as radioactive medical waste in cases like that. Eezee posted:While Thyroid cancer is obviously bad, it's pretty easy to treat and very few people actually died from that. Also subpar iodine levels in the local diet and regular cancer screenings caused a higher occurence and detection rate of thyroid cancer in the local population. I'm pro-nuclear, sorry for the confusion. I was just lamenting on how complicated and badly understood interaction of biological systems with their environments still is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:In general, people do not incorporate cosmic radiation sources like burning stars. A nuclear reactor accident is a little bit different than cosmic radiation, wouldn't you agree? If properly converted to equivalent dose then probably not really that different I'd guess. Anyway, the places considered natural high background radiation areas actually have radioactive stuff around (either via radon or directly from Th, U, ...) and are not generic mountain tops or areas near the magnetic poles, so more similar to a blown up nuclear reactor. quote:For example, our mushrooms here in ~Bavaria~ are still cesium contaminated, after almost 30 years. Story goes that boar meat needs to be checked with geiger counters before it can be sold on the open market. From time to time they still catch some fucker that is glowing so much that it would put a nuclear submarine reactor to shame. Story also goes that they have to dispose them as radioactive medical waste in cases like that. Yeah I wouldn't eat 10 kBq/kg pork every day but that stuff is the sort of low level waste that only technically needs to go in a cask but isn't worth worrying about unless you actively roll around in the stuff 24/7 (and even then you probably won't get cancer) suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Apr 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
wayfinder posted:Since we all agreed we didn't want this discussion, here's a different beat: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/mitte-studie-auslaenderfeindliche-einstellungen-in-bayern-weit-verbreitet-1.2423644 The original document is a pretty interesting read as well.  
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:The original document is a pretty interesting read as well. AfD: not literal nazis (yet, but trying hard)
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 12:02
|
|
Perestroika posted:The original document is a pretty interesting read as well. SPD - nearly twice as likely to downplay the NS terror than the CDU/CSU and also more xenophobic and chauvinistic.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Fossil fuel burning releases heavy metals including U spread out all over the Earth's surface instead of neatly packed into a hole, hth I know, which is why I'm against using fossil fuel in Germany, too. And while wind energy uses a lot of land space for minor gains, you always have to remember renewable energy sources are meant to be used together. No-one is planning to replace every single power plant ever made with wind towers, because that would be retarded. That graphic you posted shows this perfectly. We're just drawing different conclusions out of it, it seems.  Really, this is another drawback seldom brought up since humans like big numbers so much: Centralizing your power sources like with giant nuclear power plant producing gigantic amounts of energy isn't all that good, either. Replacing 1 nuclear plant with 10 geothermal plants for example, would take something like 4-5 times as much land, but on the other hand you can build them directly inside a city without generating nuclear fear or they need to be build in mountains far away where most people won't even need to see them. More important, though: If one or two of the geothermal plants go off grid for some reason, the power level doesn't go down as sharp as when that one nuclear plant goes down. So this means less and less severe blackouts. Those 10 hypothetical hydro-geothermal power plants can also generate enough heat to supply all nearby cities, thus neatly supplanting all fossil fuel based heat sources in the area. If I had the choice, I would just delete all fossil and nuclear plants from Germany and replace them with a wide-spread network of smaller, decentralized geothermal powerplants. Solar and wind in that scenario would probably be used just a bit more then today, and that's it. No need to fear forests of wind towers replacing real forests.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 12:17
|
|
|
Don't you get a higher radiation exposure from a single transatlantic flight than you would from like 30 years of living within 50km of a modern nuclear fission plant? Edit: okay this banana I'm eating right now at my desk is more radioactive than living within 50km of a nuclear plant for one year. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 12:22
|
|
|
I refer back to my post about people on this forum getting high on radioactivity like the Radioactive Man. At this point I'm asking myself how many of you are delusional, or just getting money from the nuclear industry to post this poo poo. I won't even mention how planes and bananas are not normally known for squatting on the ground with a lot of really high radiation hidden inside their shell. I know you think humans are perfect and nuclear power plants can never fail or cause accidents, they are all 100% perfect. Also 100% harmless because this chart of numbers here told me so. Hell, even if you're correct and nuclear power really is totally harmless, I still prefer 0% nuclear power solutions. Because those won't ever suddenly make an entire area a no-human zone for years or decades. Or make it necessary stashing dangerous waste underground. Zero waste is still infinitely better than "totally harmless" waste.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 12:31
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:SPD - nearly twice as likely to downplay the NS terror than the CDU/CSU and also more xenophobic and chauvinistic. CDU/CSU - their voters are less chauvinistic than SPD voters and only half as likely to downplay NS terror, but introduce much more misogynistic and xenophobic new laws. Strange how this works. Green voters best voters!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 12:40
|
|
|
Libluini posted:I refer back to my post about people on this forum getting high on radioactivity like the Radioactive Man. At this point I'm asking myself how many of you are delusional, or just getting money from the nuclear industry to post this poo poo. you will not have zero waste in any situation ever unless you invent a perpetual motion machine. at this point you're just denying facts and making poo poo up to sustain your point meanwhile coal and gas are increasing their share of european energy production, in part due to this idiotic attitude
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 12:42
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:you will not have zero waste in any situation ever that very much depends on how you define waste
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 12:46
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:The original document is a pretty interesting read as well. The scariest part is that people who aren't in the NPD think a dictatorship is completely fine 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
Libluini posted:I refer back to my post about people on this forum getting high on radioactivity like the Radioactive Man. At this point I'm asking myself how many of you are delusional, or just getting money from the nuclear industry to post this poo poo. Then agree to disagree I suppose, but for some people (ie: people who are rational about nuclear power), the long-term benefits of switching from primarily incredibly dirty, grossly unsustainable sources of fuel like coal and oil to nuclear greatly outweigh the handful of serious nuclear accidents that have occurred in the past twenty years. Name for me, without Googling, instances where a nuclear accident has rendered a large swathe of land uninhabitable. Chernobyl? Fukushima? The former was a problem of gross incompetence, faulty design, and unenforced regulations, while the latter was "hey, it's a great idea if we build a nuclear reactor on a major fault line and facing the open sea, what could possibly go wrong?" Neither problem would exist in Germany -- this country's coastline is comparatively small and free of tsunami risk, and what few earthquakes happen in Germany per year are well within tolerance for anything that could be built. The conditions for Fukushima to happen don't exist in Germany, and this country, unlike the Soviet Union and its successor states, is... you know, a competent one when it comes to regulation and infrastructure management. Can you think of more incidents without having to quickly look it up? In comparison, how many people (especially in developing countries, or in urban China) die yearly from respiratory illness related to air pollution, caused partly by burning coal and oil? How many coal miners continue to die in what is still one of the most dangerous blue-collar professions? How much ecological damage is caused by drilling for oil on the ocean floor, or in wildlife preserves? How much damage is caused by fracking (and in increasing numbers, largely because people are so afraid of nuclear)? Nuclear is by no means THE solution. But it is A solution that is generally better than oil and coal, and frankly I'm for any technology (or, better, a combination of nuclear/solar/wind/geothermal) that weans us off the disgusting, sooty tit of coal and oil. Drone fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Apr 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
Eezee posted:The scariest part is that people who aren't in the NPD think a dictatorship is completely fine Even a short read of the comments section of your average newspaper website will convince you that some people just should not be allowed the vote.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
to be honest i'm surprised that Die Linke has such a relatively low tolerance for dictatorship you constantly hear about them being SED throwbacks, and then they're within the margin of error of SPD. bad ostalgie commies IMO. V. Illych L. fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Apr 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:you will not have zero waste in any situation ever unless you invent a perpetual motion machine. at this point you're just denying facts and making poo poo up to sustain your point Zero waste as in zero actual physical waste you mega-dolt. Most renewables create thermal waste or take kinetic energy from wind/water, but not actual waste (some do). Or do you think a hydro-electric power plant creates containers filled with waste? Because no, it doesn't. The water just loses a bit of it's kinetic energy, it doesn't magically fill buckets with dirty water or whatever you were thinking there. Attitudes like yours are the problem: Ignorant, but always able to attack others regardless of how dumb they end up looking. Then they go and vote for the same dipshits planting down coal plants because those are often the same people who have no problem with nuclear power. Drone posted:Nuclear is by no means THE solution. But it is A solution that is generally better than oil and coal, and frankly I'm for any technology (or, better, a combination of nuclear/solar/wind/geothermal) that weans us off the disgusting, sooty tit of coal and oil. Well, I do confess I think coal and oil are even worse than nuclear energy, but I still don't like it. If it becomes a question of either nuclear or oil, I would take nuclear power and grudgingly accept it. However, If it becomes a question of nuclear power or renewables, I'll always speak up against nuclear power before we nail our own coffin shut.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
the production of the generators, the destruction of environments, everything involves waste unless you arbitrarily cut out everything but the energy generation itself, which is extremely silly. like, you've been confronted with well-sourced arguments and good-faith explanations as to why you're wrong (and they've been far more friendly than your sort of tripe deserves) and all you have to respond is vague slogans and insinuations about waste. the main environmental problem of nuclear energy is the mining and excavation of fissile material and the construction and maintenance of the plants themselves, to which there are direct analogues in every major renewable energy source bar possibly wind. i would invite you to make a decent, scientifically grounded argument against nuclear energy that is not essentially general to energy production as such, as you have been exposed to decent, scientifically grounded arguments in its favour previously, but you won't, because you can't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:SPD - nearly twice as likely to downplay the NS terror than the CDU/CSU and also more xenophobic and chauvinistic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
It's kind of unfair to call the SPD out on being xenophobic, when the CDU/CSU had that Sarrazin guy who openly made up facts to slander immigrants and non-ethnic Germans and even defended him, saying he was just expressing his freedom of speech. (Which  legally does not cover making poo poo up.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Well, I do confess I think coal and oil are even worse than nuclear energy, but I still don't like it. Libluini posted:If it becomes a question of either nuclear or oil, I would take nuclear power and grudgingly accept it. Arguing about the rest is obfuscating the actual problem: climate change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Randler posted:when the CDU/CSU had that Sarrazin guy e: to be fair, all observation would indicate that it's some sort of false flag operation, but still.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:He's been in the SPD for over 40 years. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
There's also that Berlin district mayor I can't remember the name of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:He's been in the SPD for over 40 years. Randler thought he could be funny. But one xenophobic SPD guy doesn't change the fact that xenophobic legislation originates from right wing parties. Which party wanted to make speaking German mandatory even in the privacy of your home?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Which party wanted to make speaking German mandatory even in the privacy of your home? None, because newspapers suck at understanding technical language? (Also, Lafontaine about immigrant workers while he was still in the SPD makes at least two xenophobes.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:28 |
|
|
Libluini posted:I know, which is why I'm against using fossil fuel in Germany, too. And while wind energy uses a lot of land space for minor gains, you always have to remember renewable energy sources are meant to be used together. No-one is planning to replace every single power plant ever made with wind towers, because that would be retarded. All that concrete and steel has to come from somewhere and go somewhere. Whether it goes into ten different types of power stations or one doesn't matter as long as all of them need tons of material inputs for too little power output. quote:Really, this is another drawback seldom brought up since humans like big numbers so much: Centralizing your power sources like with giant nuclear power plant producing gigantic amounts of energy isn't all that good, either. Replacing 1 nuclear plant with 10 geothermal plants for example, would take something like 4-5 times as much land, but on the other hand you can build them directly inside a city without generating nuclear fear or they need to be build in mountains far away where most people won't even need to see them. More important, though: If one or two of the geothermal plants go off grid for some reason, the power level doesn't go down as sharp as when that one nuclear plant goes down. So this means less and less severe blackouts. Libluini posted:I refer back to my post about people on this forum getting high on radioactivity like the Radioactive Man. At this point I'm asking myself how many of you are delusional, or just getting money from the nuclear industry to post this poo poo.  to come out. It is absolutely impossible that you're more scared of evil atoms than warranted by the actual effects of radiation.quote:I won't even mention how planes and bananas are not normally known for squatting on the ground with a lot of really high radiation hidden inside their shell. I know you think humans are perfect and nuclear power plants can never fail or cause accidents, they are all 100% perfect. Also 100% harmless because this chart of numbers here told me so. When you're literally more likely to get crushed by a solar panel falling down from a roof than to die from exposure to ~atomz~ then no, you don't have a point. Note that e.g. most of the Fukushima evacuation was unnecessary and literally killed more people than even anti-nuclear research groups predicted would get cancer from staying. Libluini posted:Zero waste as in zero actual physical waste you mega-dolt. Most renewables create thermal waste or take kinetic energy from wind/water, but not actual waste (some do). Hydro creates costs in that every river system that has hydro dams has ruined alluvial forests because of water regime changes. Fish and invertebrate communities also get all sorts of messed up due to changes in water regime, water temperature, oxygenation, etc. In addition, again, all that concrete and steel has to come from somewhere. quote:Attitudes like yours are the problem: Ignorant, but always able to attack others regardless of how dumb they end up looking. Then they go and vote for the same dipshits planting down coal plants because those are often the same people who have no problem with nuclear power.  I love how nucular power manages to unite greens and oil companies quote:Well, I do confess I think coal and oil are even worse than nuclear energy, but I still don't like it. If it becomes a question of either nuclear or oil, I would take nuclear power and grudgingly accept it. However, If it becomes a question of nuclear power or renewables, I'll always speak up against nuclear power before we nail our own coffin shut. I'm totally ok with us running on breeder reactors and/or thorium until someone coughs up enough money to build a working fusion reactor (like, tens of billions per year instead of a billion dollar baby step every other decade) or indefinitely. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Apr 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:37
|
|