| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 7:54 pm Post subject: Is Peaceful Nuclear Energy the Future or the Past...? |
 |
|
What are your thoughts on energy?
Below, I post the commentary that Spinoza asked we take to another thread. I comply, Spinoza.
So, then. Anyone have any thoughts on this issue? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
Not a single new plant ordered in North America since the 1970s. Enough said...
Strangely enough, there is some kind of weird psychological thing that goes on with people who get interested in nuclear energy...like some kind of cult, or religion. They seem to get ''hooked" on it somehow...become convinced it can solve all the world's problems...major cognitive dissonance when it comes to radioactivity and cost issues.
If nuclear energy made economic sense, there'd be reactors everywhere.
Sad. |
| Gopher wrote: |
| What is your position on Tehran's interest in nuclear power and weapons? on Chile and others' interest in exploring nuclear energy in Latin America and the Caribbean? |
See this thread on possible Chilean nuclear-energy R&D.
| Mindmetoo wrote: |
This statement makes the unwarrented assumption that the only forces guiding nuclear reactor development is economic. Irrational fears certainly play a large part in what hampers reactor development. If you're building them ham fisted like the poor soviets, they're pretty dangerous. One should note the 70s era safety mechanism of three mile island worked. Accidents are not impossible but consider hundreds of people die every year working in gas, oil, and coal. How many people die a year from the toxic byproducts of gas, oil, and coal?
And nuclear reactors are everywhere, in France and Japan. France gets about 70% of its electricity from nuclear. When you strip away the NIMBY and the anti-nuke lobby, they do make economic sense. And they're going to have to in North America. We get our energy from gas, oil, coal, hydro, and nuclear.
Hydro is built out. We can't dam many more rivers. Gas and oil... not in huge supply these days. Coal is vast but comes at a great environmental impact. The only option left on the table is nuclear.
What's the logical choice? |
Last edited by Gopher on Fri May 04, 2007 8:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spliff
Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Location: Khon Kaen, Thailand
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Errr...it's both. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
4 months left
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
