Why not require all commercial building to have solar power?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Why not require all commercial building to have solar power?

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Rent-A-Cop posted:

They are really green though because for the most part nature doesn't give a gently caress about radiation. Seriously, you can irradiate the holy hell out of most plants and animals before they give a gently caress. See the former site of the Georgia Nuclear Aircraft Laboratory where the USAF literally bathed a forest in radiation to see what would happen. It is probably the single most heavily irradiated site on Earth, and now it's a state park.

The worst nuclear disaster in history killed 62 people and now it's a nature preserve.

It was very scary, however. You can't say "Oh, that glacier melted because of that new coal plant that opened up" - so it's not anyone's fault, particularly.

# ¿ Sep 18, 2014 03:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 13:57

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

KoRMaK posted:

So it doesn't last for 1000 years or some nearly eternal bullshit amount of time?

It depends what you mean by "nearly eternal." A lot of dangerous nuclear waste will be very dangerous for a long time. There are steps that can reduce that risk, some of which involve "using it as fuel again" since the radioactive poo poo actually makes good reactor fuel. It involves a lot of plutonium which people could extract for nuclear bombs, however, which evidently presents a fundamental risk of some kind, possibly in case someone decides to steal it? I was never clear on this, but "proliferation risk" is usually cited when that factoid comes up.

It also depends how much of a risk you're willing to take, to some extent.

This isn't to say that radiation or heavy metals are "good," but it's not like "pollutants, dangerous wastes, and so forth" are somehow unique to the nuclear power industry. I think sometimes every cost is toted up for nuclear power, while many of the costs of coal/natural gas are just sort of ignored, since we'll clearly all be running on solar/wind/biomass/living like medieval peasants again Real Soon Now, so they don't matter.

# ¿ Sep 18, 2014 03:14

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

KoRMaK posted:

Does the one that takes 2000 years give off enough radiation to make you sick and mess up your reproductive mechanisms?

Do you think that coal ash and other forms of industrial waste do not make you sick or mess up your reproductive mechanisms?

# ¿ Sep 18, 2014 03:41

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Bedshaped posted:

Nuclear fission in it's current form is:

Non renewable

Producing hazardous waste products

Possessing the possibility that lack of maintenance/modernized systems/human error can cause a catastrophically environment changing meltdown

Others have spoken on the non-renewable factor. There is probably uranium for thousands of years, even assuming we don't bother prospecting much for it. There is also a surprisingly large amount of it in the ocean, at least compared to the amount you need to generate electrical power.

A lot of things produce hazardous waste products. I do not mean this to dismiss the question of radioactive waste. But there are lots of other wastes. Pollution does not cease to exist merely because it occurs on Chinese territory.

As for your last point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill

Sure, you might say, nobody died. But nobody died at Three Mile Island either.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2014 20:23

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Why not require all commercial building to have solar power?