Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 83

Thread: Phoronix 2011 Chernobyl Nuclear Tour

  1. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yotambien View Post
    That's not a fact.
    OK, it's a projection but that's what's likley...

    But, you know, if you want to be sensationalist, go on... Imagine if people had acted 100 years ago as they are right now - we would not have airplanes nowdays because they would have been banned after a few crashes...

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,937

    Default

    Dude, Denmark produces so much less CO2 per capita than the US and Canada that it's not even funny. Even if they TRIED, they couldn't match it. It's a dumb argument. They are cleaner in terms of CO2 production (which mostly comes from fossil fuels) than almost any nuclear-using country. They are decomissioning coal plants and replacing them with clean energy, wtf are you talking about?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO...er_country.png

    You are simply wrong. Austria: 80% renewable (target in 2010, in 2006 they were at over 60%). Portugal: 45% renewable. Spain: 35% renewable. Sweden: over 40% renewable. Latvia: over 30%. Yes, Norway and Iceland, over 40% renewable. Denmark: on the way to 50% renewable. Galicia is 100% renewable, and some other Spanish regions are aiming for the same goal in the near future.

    Every region has the possibility to use SOME type of natural energy source. In Iceland, it's geothermal, in sea countries it's wind and tidal, where there are mountains -- hydro, in southern Europe it's solar, there's always something.

    All of EU is aiming at over 20% renewable energy use in the near future. That's considerably more than the nuclear power. Arguing AGAINST green energy is just sick. You have problems.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,937

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by srg_13 View Post
    But, you know, if you want to be sensationalist, go on... Imagine if people had acted 100 years ago as they are right now - we would not have airplanes nowdays because they would have been banned after a few crashes...
    And if people had acted 50 years ago as they are acting now, we would be phasing out nuclear weapons, because they would have been banned after a few explo.... wait...

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    And if people had acted 50 years ago as they are acting now, we would be phasing out nuclear weapons, because they would have been banned after a few explo.... wait...
    Nuclear waepons were only used as a weapon in WWII, which stopped uhm... the entire fsking World War.

    So difficult this rational thinking... -_-

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,937

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pvtcupcakes View Post
    I wouldn't call something that has only happened 3 times in the last 60 years to be happening on a regular basis.
    That is because you are only counting total fubars that went out of control.

    If you look at everything, then it does indeed happen on a regular basis: http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/...nob/rep02.html (some of those are a bit far-fetched, but still lots to go through).

    For the bigger ones, see http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2715/1/

    Renewable sources aren't a viable option to replace fossil fuels right now.
    Of course they are. Austria is running on 80% renewable, some parts of Spain have hit 100%. Several European countries are running at around 50% renewable at the moment. Most of them have minimal, if any, nuclear capabilities.

    It won't be an overnight thing. It's still the right direction.

    Do you have ANY idea how much money would be needed to replace all the coal and oil and gas plants with nuclear ones? There's nowhere near enough uranium for that in the first place (cause it, just like fossil fuels, is not renewable). It's better to plan with future-proof technologies. Sun doesn't run out, neither do waves. And they are much less radioactive to boot. If a valve leaks some seawater, nothing happens.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,937

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    Nuclear waepons were only used as a weapon in WWII, which stopped uhm... the entire fsking World War.
    That's why we all love them and want to have more

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    That is because you are only counting total fubars that went out of control.

    If you look at everything, then it does indeed happen on a regular basis: http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/...nob/rep02.html (some of those are a bit far-fetched, but still lots to go through).

    For the bigger ones, see http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2715/1/


    Of course they are. Austria is running on 80% renewable, some parts of Spain have hit 100%. Several European countries are running at around 50% renewable at the moment. Most of them have minimal, if any, nuclear capabilities.

    It won't be an overnight thing. It's still the right direction.

    Do you have ANY idea how much money would be needed to replace all the coal and oil and gas plants with nuclear ones? There's nowhere near enough uranium for that in the first place (cause it, just like fossil fuels, is not renewable). It's better to plan with future-proof technologies. Sun doesn't run out, neither do waves. And they are much less radioactive to boot. If a valve leaks some seawater, nothing happens.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...r-thorium.html

    "A mere fistful [of thorium] would light London for a week."

    "Thorium burns the plutonium residue left by uranium reactors, acting as an eco-cleaner." This means you can take current nuclear waste, toss it into a modern reactor, and then produce energy from it.

    "Once you start looking more closely, it blows your mind away. You can run civilisation on thorium for hundreds of thousands of years"

    "Thorium-fluoride reactors can operate at atmospheric temperature. The plants would be much smaller and less expensive. You wouldn’t need those huge containment domes because there’s no pressurized water in the reactor. It’s close-fitting,"

    Nuclear power could become routine and unthreatening. But first there is the barrier of establishment prejudice. "

    Like the article said, the biggest problem nuclear has is that people associate nuclear bombs with nuclear power. You quoted Greenpeace, and they're a huge perpetrator of this false belief. They think that anything that is radioactive is automatically bad, and they don't seem to realize that the sun is radioactive. So minor leaks of radioactivity are really not dangerous. And they don't even consider the safety measures implemented on nuclear reactors. Their argument is pretty much "Nuclear reactors are going to explode, and kill your puppies."

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,937

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pvtcupcakes View Post
    Like the article said, the biggest problem nuclear has is that people associate nuclear bombs with nuclear power.
    This is because nuclear power is a remnant of the weapons program.

    They think that anything that is radioactive is automatically bad, and they don't seem to realize that the sun is radioactive.
    Not everything is EQUALLY radioactive. Bananas are radioactive, but they did not evacuate a 60-km diameter because of a banana, or because of the sun.

    Their argument is pretty much "Nuclear reactors are going to explode, and kill your puppies."
    But... that's what's just happened.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberax View Post
    [...]

    And this capacity will be replaced by coal and natural gas. Way to go, morons.
    No that's wrong. Germany produces currently more energy than they actually need. And they also produce only about 15% of it's power consumption with nuclear power plants. They could easily shut down half of their nuclear reactors without risking electrical power outage.

    The electrical peak load in Germany is at about 83 Gigawatt/year and in 2009 they produced about 140 Gigawatt.
    (source)

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Davidovitch View Post
    I agree that the media are passionate about sensationalism. But honestly, how can you say this is an unfortunate event? Do you even realise how serious the situation is? Can you even begin to imagine what the consequences already are? Or what could happen if it keeps going bad? Mind you, things are far from being under control! Shit happens yes, but there are viable alternatives to nuclear despite what the nuclear lobby would likes you to believe.
    such as? Coal plants? Oil plants? I guess that's covering it pretty much. There are some powerplants driven by waterfalls...so you suggest to build waterfalls?

    If you go for those windpower thingis, forget it, they're big, they aren't safe (everytime a bigger storm comes down, one of those things breaks) and they don't generate enough power. And those photovoltaic cells? You need rare earth elements for them and the complete IT technology relies on those aswell and even if we would turnover everything for the cells, it wouldn't be enough (not even close). [the biggest photovoltaik power plants deliver 40MW, a nuclear fission power plant delivers (such as the nuclear fission power plant "Biblis" in Germany, near Biblis delivers at least 1167 MW per reactor block)

    So, at the end, there are 3 "real" power plant technologies: nuclear fission, nuclear fusion (which is not ready yet...I guess they need at least 20 years to build the first plant that really generates power) and geothermal energy.

    So, there is no technology capable of handling our need for power.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •