|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
 Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 5:37 am Post subject: |
 |
|
The blast-it-up-into-space solution isn't used at present for the 16% of world energy derived from nuclear power, as far as I know. Yes, expense, and safety (failed launches) I recall as reasons against, but I don't buy that safety objection and find it unclear how the expense of using space could be any worse than the expense that lies ahead from anthropogenic generation of CO2 of the order of 21 billion metric tons per year from fossil fuel burning.
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| You're a daft bugger, which is disappointing because I thought you might be one of the sensible ones who cares about the environment yet simultaneously seeks to maintain the industrial way of life and lift developing nations out of poverty - which are not possible in any other fashion other than nuclear. Obviously I was wrong. |
No, you aren't wrong, but I don't like propaganda in any form. The article you cited/post you made had two quick claims that didn't even pass the giggle test.
FACT: There is no long-term storage solution for nuclear waste. |
So, I was right then? You didn't, and possibly still haven't, read the articles?
Ingham said: "Nuclear has neither decommissioning nor waste management problems, apart from getting politicians to designate a site as a repository for its longer-term irradiated wastes."
Ingham acknowledges the issue of long-term storage, so your "two quick claims that didn't even pass the giggle test" is, well, sh*te.
Anyway, 'There is no long-term storage solution for nuclear waste' is superficial � and that's a euphemism.
'Radioactive Wastes - Myths and Realities': http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf103.html
FACT: Our world cannot meet its expanding energy needs - cleanly - without a sharp expansion of nuclear energy.
| Quote: |
| FACT: Using a word like "debunked" in this discussion is jumping right to propaganda tactics. It is not appropriate in the context. |
Of course it's appropriate. Renewables are an absolute waste of space - yes, in the literal sense too.
FACT: The International Energy Agency: even with conitnued subsidy, renewables can only provide around 6% of world electricity by 2030. What fookin' good's that?? FACT: the World Energy Council accepts worldwide capacity of nuclear power plants must triple by 2050 (if Kyoto is to be reached and sustained in the face of Chinese and Far Asian economic growth)
a landscape covered by solar panels and windmills still would not be anything close to sufficient.
Read the Ingham lecture!! In more PC terminology to suit sensitive types, he offers objections to the role of renewables.
| Quote: |
If you're starting from there, we're wasting our time.
Are there benefits to nuclear energy? Of course. But I don't want to get into a propagandized discussion. I'd be more than interested in a factual, even-handed debate on the issue. |
Stop using this 'propaganda' nonsense. One source (the Ingham lecture) is informed by service in the UK Department of Energy (1974-79) and experience of top level environmental discussion across the world. The other is a paper by a nuclear physicist who used to work in the nuclear industry in France. This is merely a tactic to divert attention away from the point - nuclear is back! 
| Quote: |
| Irrelevant: things break. Things get broken. Espionage happens. Etc. Always will. |
The safety record of nuclear energy is better than for any major industrial technology. The modern reactor makes an incident similar to Chernobyl technically impossible. If what you say about nuclear is correct, one would expect demand to do the opposite of skyrocket.
| Quote: |
| I'm not going to bother looking up the exact name for the logical error here... You know both this and the previous comment were not logical. |
Mindmetoo is saying that the accident at Chernobyl was not due to any shortcoming of nuclear energy per se. It was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel and without proper regard for safety. Understanding this fact could earn you some money. To conclude that nuclear power is unsafe, even that all its benefits are outweighed by Chernobyl (total 56 fatalities as of 2004, the world�s worst nuclear disaster), is crackers in my opinion. I thought you weren�t propagandizing? Particularly ridiculous from your perspective ought to be that nuclear power stations are even more important to the Ukraine and its energy independence from Russia than they were in 1986 in the old Soviet Union (and Russia has several plants in development). Game, set and match. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
Ingham said: "Nuclear has neither decommissioning nor waste management problems, apart from getting politicians to designate a site as a repository for its longer-term irradiated wastes."
Ingham acknowledges the issue of long-term storage, so your "two quick claims that didn't even pass the giggle test" is, well, sh*te. |
Well, if he SAYS so... Show me the science.
So, it's already been determined? Really? Got news for you: you aren't going to get enough reactors built in the short time available EITHER. So, no, this is not a fact. It's somebody's opinion. C'mon, you know what a fact is... for chrissake...
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| FACT: Using a word like "debunked" in this discussion is jumping right to propaganda tactics. It is not appropriate in the context. |
Of course it's appropriate. Renewables are an absolute waste of space - yes, in the literal sense too.
|
Ah, well... as long as you SAY so... Ah! You're right! I see it now!
| Quote: |
| FACT: The International Energy Agency: even with conitnued subsidy, renewables can only provide around 6% of world electricity by 2030. What fookin' good's that?? |
Are you saying the info is fact (it's not; it's a projection... unless fortune telling is now a factual endeavor...) or are you saying it's a fact they made that claim? Doesn't matter. It's an opinion, nothing more. One that is almost certainly wrong and completely dependent on the variables you place into the equation.
| Quote: |
FACT: the World Energy Council accepts worldwide capacity of nuclear power plants must triple by 2050 (if Kyoto is to be reached and sustained in the face of Chinese and Far Asian economic growth)
|
Again, are you saying that percentage is "fact?" If so, you are again confused about what a fact is. Again, it's a projection, thus, cannot be fact under any interpretation.
| Quote: |
| Read the Ingham lecture!! In more PC terminology to suit sensitive types, he offers objections to the role of renewables. |
Now, see, that works much better, and is not a misrepresentation of the facts.
| Quote: |
If you're starting from there, we're wasting our time.
Are there benefits to nuclear energy? Of course. But I don't want to get into a propagandized discussion. I'd be more than interested in a factual, even-handed debate on the issue. |
| Quote: |
| Stop using this 'propaganda' nonsense. One source (the Ingham lecture) is informed by service in the UK Department of Energy (1974-79) and experience of top level environmental discussion across the world. The other is a paper by a nuclear physicist who used to work in the nuclear industry in France. This is merely a tactic to divert attention away from the point - nuclear is back! |
Doesn't make it any less propaganda. Or, put nicely, it's nothing more than opinion and conjecture.
| Quote: |
| Irrelevant: things break. Things get broken. Espionage happens. Etc. Always will. |
| Quote: |
| The safety record of nuclear energy is better than for any major industrial technology. The modern reactor makes an incident similar to Chernobyl technically impossible. If what you say about nuclear is correct, one would expect demand to do the opposite of skyrocket. |
You are ignoring my point: You cannot guarantee safety. Of anything. Let alone a nuclear reactor. Now, is the risk assessment within bounds some find acceptable? Apparently. But not mine.
| Quote: |
| I'm not going to bother looking up the exact name for the logical error here... You know both this and the previous comment were not logical. |
| Quote: |
| Mindmetoo is saying that the accident at Chernobyl was not due to any shortcoming of nuclear energy per se. It was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel and without proper regard for safety. |
Um... for a discussion of energy usage you must include the issues you dismiss: who is doing the work? Who is designing the machinery? Etc. You cannot pretend they are separate. Dancer/dance... chicken/egg.
| Quote: |
| To conclude that nuclear power is unsafe, even that all its benefits are outweighed by Chernobyl (total 56 fatalities as of 2004, the world�s worst nuclear disaster), is crackers in my opinion. I thought you weren�t propagandizing? Particularly ridiculous from your perspective ought to be that nuclear power stations are even more important to the Ukraine and its energy independence from Russia than they were in 1986 in the old Soviet Union (and Russia has several plants in development). Game, set and match. |
Let me repeat: so far. And deaths is not the only measure. Those numbers won't be in for years. Also let me repeat: my primary concern is the long-term effects on people and the environment. And, again, there **is no long term solution to nuclear waste sufficient to ensure the safety of current and future generations.**
Anyway, going round in circles. Additonal nuclear power may be part of the answer, but it is not THE answer. For one, there's actually not all that much fissible material out there, and certainly not enough to power 7 billion people. To say renewable is a joke is foolish. I guarantee you it will continue to grow around the world. The poisoning of the planet - of which nuclear has the greatest potential - cannot continue for us to live as a healthy species... same for other species.
No, the answer, as with most things, will be highly dependent on local conditions. It will be a range of solutions, not one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| You are ignoring my point: You cannot guarantee safety. Of anything. Let alone a nuclear reactor. Now, is the risk assessment within bounds some find acceptable? Apparently. But not mine. |
And what would be your safety bounds?
| Quote: |
| Let me repeat: so far. And deaths is not the only measure. Those numbers won't be in for years. Also let me repeat: my primary concern is the long-term effects on people and the environment. And, again, there **is no long term solution to nuclear waste sufficient to ensure the safety of current and future generations.** |
Umm Yucca mountain. You made a claim. And in keeping with your style, it was evidence none of us can examine. I posted evidence inconsistent with your claim. You've not countered that evidence. In keeping with your style, you've returned to your original unsupported premise.
| Quote: |
| For one, there's actually not all that much fissible material out there, and certainly not enough to power 7 billion people. |
Got evidence to support that claim? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Umm Yucca mountain. You made a claim. And in keeping with your style, it was evidence none of us can examine. I posted evidence inconsistent with your claim. You've not countered that evidence. In keeping with your style, you've returned to your original unsupported premise. |
Tireed of childish pissing contests. Grow up or be ignored. You want info, ask, or go find it. I support my points. Quit whining about YOU not being able to find info already on this board. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Umm Yucca mountain. You made a claim. And in keeping with your style, it was evidence none of us can examine. I posted evidence inconsistent with your claim. You've not countered that evidence. In keeping with your style, you've returned to your original unsupported premise. |
Tireed of childish pissing contests. Grow up or be ignored. You want info, ask, or go find it. I support my points. Quit whining about YOU not being able to find info already on this board. |
So you have no evidence then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Umm Yucca mountain. You made a claim. And in keeping with your style, it was evidence none of us can examine. I posted evidence inconsistent with your claim. You've not countered that evidence. In keeping with your style, you've returned to your original unsupported premise. |
Tireed of childish pissing contests. Grow up or be ignored. You want info, ask, or go find it. I support my points. Quit whining about YOU not being able to find info already on this board. |
So you have no evidence then? |
Again, grow up. If you know anything of Yucca Mountain, you know it sits over an aquifer, is basically a brittle bathtub full of waste, and is only DESIGNED for 500 years of life. Tell us, how many of ANY kind of building still exists after 500 years?
You got anything to dispute what I remember from when I was active in an organization fighting this monstrosity? No? Well, I'll take my first-hand memory over your childish jibes with ZERO info any day.
Look it up, lazy.
Uh-huh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is not where I learned what I know... and already told you, troll.. but it will suffice: Protection to last tens of thousands of years (Yeah, right. Show me ANY OTHER man-made structure that has lasted that long intact.) while the DANGER lasts hundreds of thousands.
Brilliant.
From Wiki.
| Quote: |
Geology
The formation that makes up Yucca Mountain was created by several large eruptions from a caldera volcano and is composed of alternating layers of ignimbrite (welded tuff), non-welded tuff, and semi-welded tuff. Tuff has special physical, chemical and thermal characteristics that some experts believe make it a suitable material to entomb radioactive waste for the hundreds of thousands of years required for the waste to become safe through radioactive decay. (Except for all those cracks going down into the aquifer... which rises and falls, of course. It is highly unlikely to stay stable over hundreds of thousands of years.)
Like any geologic formation, Yucca Mountain is criss-crossed by cracks and fissures. Some of these cracks extend from the planned storage area all the way to the water table 1000 feet (300 m) below. It is feared by some that these cracks may provide a route for radioactive waste after the predicted containment failure of the waste containers several tens of thousands of years from now. Officials state that the waste containers will be stored in such a way as to minimize or even nearly eliminate this possibility. Even without cracks, tuff is slightly permeable to water, but due to the depth of the water table it is estimated that by the time the waste enters the water supply it will be safe.
However, the area around Yucca Mountain received much more rain in the geologic past and the water table was consequently much higher than it is today. Critics contend that future climate cannot be predicted to 10,000 years so it is optimistic to assume that the area will always be as arid as it is today. Most geologists that have worked at the site still maintain that the geology will adequately slow the rate of waste seepage to protect water supplies even if the local climate becomes much wetter.[12] |
We are in no-brainer land here. If nuclear is to be pursued, it should be only with off-planet disposal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joeyjoejoe
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
i hope the indians hurry up and develop thorium reactors.
more efficient, with much less waste in both quantity and radioactivity.
plus they eat plutonium waste for breakfast.
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| This is not where I learned what I know... and already told you, troll.. but it will suffice: Protection to last tens of thousands of years (Yeah, right. Show me ANY OTHER man-made structure that has lasted that long intact.) while the DANGER lasts hundreds of thousands. |
Troll? Bahahahaha. Gettin' a little steamed as always, huh? Anyway, binkie, I think the vast majority of us don't really care about earth in 102,00 AD. Aren't we more worried about global warming and earth in 2100 AD?
You'll notice the sentence right after the part you bold counters it:
| Quote: |
Like any geologic formation, Yucca Mountain is criss-crossed by cracks and fissures. Some of these cracks extend from the planned storage area all the way to the water table 1000 feet (300 m) below. It is feared by some that these cracks may provide a route for radioactive waste after the predicted containment failure of the waste containers several tens of thousands of years from now. Officials state that the waste containers will be stored in such a way as to minimize or even nearly eliminate this possibility. Even without cracks, tuff is slightly permeable to water, but due to the depth of the water table it is estimated that by the time the waste enters the water supply it will be safe.
|
| Quote: |
| If nuclear is to be pursued, it should be only with off-planet disposal. |
Space 1999! Actually, rockets have pretty high failure rates. I don't think you want to try and launch nuclear waste into space given their failure rate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
EFL trainer needs to wire his head and his ass together and get with the fookin program. Concern for the environment/fossil fuels yet opposing nuclear domination is a bit like being a raving nationalist and anti-semite in 1930s Germany yet opposing Hitler. By objecting to nuclear power mainly on Chernobyl grounds, it begs the question why on earth you feel qualified to comment.
Go and voice your disagreement to the EU (34% nuclear), or the US Department of Energy (21%, set to climb). No good preaching renewables to me � you�ve more chance of converting Al Quaeda to Orthodox Judaism. Voice your disagreement to the World Nuclear University: http://www.world-nuclear-university.org/
Chernobyl? Dear. �The Chernobyl Bogeyman�: http://www.sone.org.uk/content/view/52/30/
Disposal? �Sanity and nuclear waste disposal�: http://www.sone.org.uk/content/view/53/30/
Renewables? Read and weep: �The ill thought out nature of the 20% renewables policy was underlined by the well-documented weather experienced in the UK on March 26-28, 2007. A strong anti-cyclone, with light easterly winds, brought overnight frosts with freezing morning fog. With little or no wind there was no power from wind turbines. With freezing fog there is no sunshine and no solar power. With no wind, the sea is becalmed�so no wave power. At the same time, with cold mornings, electricity demand is high. Where would the necessary supply come from in 2020? The blunt truth is that existing conventional power plants would have to be retained (at enormous cost) to prevent blackouts. The question that arises from this is analysis is this: Do politicians who invent these targets ever seek or take engineering advice before making these impossible commitments?� From: �The 20% Renewables Policy � An Idea without Logic�: http://www.sone.org.uk/images/stories/sone%2020%20renewable%20energy%202007.doc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFL Trainer wrote: |
| We are in no-brainer land here. If nuclear is to be pursued, it should be only with off-planet disposal. |
We�re not in Nobrainer Land according to the final sentence of your very own link: �Most geologists that have worked at the site still maintain that the geology will adequately slow the rate of waste seepage to protect water supplies even if the local climate becomes much wetter.�
Presumably why it got the go-ahead in 2002. Well, you haven�t done a good job reading my links and seemingly didn�t make it to end of one of your own either!
Yucca Mountain? �Regional and International Repositories: Not If, But How and When�: http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2002/mccombie.htm
| Quote: |
| Anyway, going round in circles. Additonal nuclear power may be part of the answer, but it is not THE answer. For one, there's actually not all that much fissible material out there, and certainly not enough to power 7 billion people. |
Well, let�s ask the experts: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.htm
You should read that paper thoroughly�.repeatedly!
| Quote: |
| Are you saying the info is fact (it's not; it's a projection... unless fortune telling is now a factual endeavor...) or are you saying it's a fact they made that claim? |
the latter.
| Quote: |
| Doesn't matter. It's an opinion, nothing more |
Ridiculous. It is the opinion of the International Energy Agency.
| Quote: |
| One that is almost certainly wrong |
Why�s that?
| I wrote: |
| FACT: the World Energy Council accepts worldwide capacity of nuclear power plants must triple by 2050 (if Kyoto is to be reached and sustained in the face of Chinese and Far Asian economic growth) |
| EFL Trainer then wrote: |
| Again, are you saying that percentage is "fact?" If so, you are again confused about what a fact is. Again, it's a projection, thus, cannot be fact under any interpretation. |
Sorry this has to be explained. I meant it is a fact that the World Energy Council accepts�.etc etc.
Please don�t revisit this because it�s intellectually malfeasant and obfuscates.
| Quote: |
| Doesn't make it any less propaganda. Or, put nicely, it's nothing more than opinion and conjecture |
I�ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the cause of this belief is not having read the sources thoroughly, if at all.
| Quote: |
| You are ignoring my point: You cannot guarantee safety. Of anything. Let alone a nuclear reactor |
This truism has no practical meaning.
| Quote: |
| Um... for a discussion of energy usage you must include the issues you dismiss: who is doing the work? Who is designing the machinery? Etc. You cannot pretend they are separate. Dancer/dance... chicken/egg. |
An absolutely absurd observation. I mean this most sincerely � are you okay? A dancer and a dance are clearly, fundamentally distinct entities. See also kitchen knife vs murder weopon, plane vs pilot/other operating staff. A guy who does a Michael Jackson dance really badly tells us nothing about the Michael Jackson dance done by MJ or similarly well. Likewise, Chernobyl was due to ill-trained staff ignoring basic safety standards as they operated one of the former Soviet Union's flawed nuclear generators. The Soviets were politically isolated and had less regard for public safety. Chernobyl was not due to nuclear power per se just as a brutal murder is not due to knives per se. But please let's not discuss issues in conceptual analysis - let's just stick to the point! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| This is not where I learned what I know... and already told you, troll.. but it will suffice: Protection to last tens of thousands of years (Yeah, right. Show me ANY OTHER man-made structure that has lasted that long intact.) while the DANGER lasts hundreds of thousands. |
Troll? Bahahahaha. Gettin' a little steamed as always, huh? Anyway, binkie, I think the vast majority of us don't really care about earth in 102,00 AD. Aren't we more worried about global warming and earth in 2100 AD?
You'll notice the sentence right after the part you bold counters it:
| Quote: |
Like any geologic formation, Yucca Mountain is criss-crossed by cracks and fissures. Some of these cracks extend from the planned storage area all the way to the water table 1000 feet (300 m) below. It is feared by some that these cracks may provide a route for radioactive waste after the predicted containment failure of the waste containers several tens of thousands of years from now. Officials state that the waste containers will be stored in such a way as to minimize or even nearly eliminate this possibility. Even without cracks, tuff is slightly permeable to water, but due to the depth of the water table it is estimated that by the time the waste enters the water supply it will be safe.
|
| Quote: |
| If nuclear is to be pursued, it should be only with off-planet disposal. |
Space 1999! Actually, rockets have pretty high failure rates. I don't think you want to try and launch nuclear waste into space given their failure rate. |
Look, son. You're not too bright, and can't get over issues you were wrong about months ago. Get over it already. Quit chasing me around the board making false allegations. Makes you look stupid.
Now, what I have said is FACT. What you have said is FALSE. I have said the storage plans DO NOT prevent seepage. What you state above is either out of a lack of English comprehension or lack of intelligence, I don't know which, but "Officials state that the waste containers will be stored in such a way as to minimize or even nearly eliminate this possibility" does NOT equal "eliminates." Thus, no matter how you slice it, that waste WILL be getting into the environment in the future.
That you so blithely ACCEPT this says all we need to know. You have no standing. You are wrong, as always, and willing to sacrifice the future for YOUR comfort. Not a very moral or ethical stance.
Spinoza is engaging in sincere debate. You are trolling. Get off the thread, troll. Your only reason for being here is to take a jab at me. You have failed. Get lost. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| EFL Trainer wrote: |
| We are in no-brainer land here. If nuclear is to be pursued, it should be only with off-planet disposal. |
We�re not in Nobrainer Land according to the final sentence of your very own link: �Most geologists that have worked at the site still maintain that the geology will adequately slow the rate of waste seepage to protect water supplies even if the local climate becomes much wetter.� |
C'mon, spinoza: MOST. Key word.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Anyway, going round in circles. Additonal nuclear power may be part of the answer, but it is not THE answer. For one, there's actually not all that much fissible material out there, and certainly not enough to power 7 billion people. |
Well, let�s ask the experts: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.htm
You should read that paper thoroughly�.repeatedly!
|
That's one opinion. Quit taking AN opinion as THE facts. Regardless, it's not a major point, but I have read from more than one source that there is not as much out there as some believe and scarcity is an issue when considering going global with this solution. This is not a big issue for me, so I've not collected links. If I have time, I'll look for some. I suspect you already know there are dissenting views on this and have the links... so why not post the dissenting view?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Are you saying the info is fact (it's not; it's a projection... unless fortune telling is now a factual endeavor...) or are you saying it's a fact they made that claim? |
the latter.
| Quote: |
| Doesn't matter. It's an opinion, nothing more |
Ridiculous. It is the opinion of the International Energy Agency.
|
No, spinoza, it's not ridiculous. You are conflating what the nature of a thing is with who produced it. You might call it an informed opinion, but it is still only an opinion.
| Quote: |
| I wrote: |
| FACT: the World Energy Council accepts worldwide capacity of nuclear power plants must triple by 2050 (if Kyoto is to be reached and sustained in the face of Chinese and Far Asian economic growth) |
| EFL Trainer then wrote: |
| Again, are you saying that percentage is "fact?" If so, you are again confused about what a fact is. Again, it's a projection, thus, cannot be fact under any interpretation. |
Sorry this has to be explained. I meant it is a fact that the World Energy Council accepts�.etc etc.
Please don�t revisit this because it�s intellectually malfeasant and obfuscates. |
Excuse me? You being unclear is me attempting to obfuscate and acting unethically? Christ almighty....
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Doesn't make it any less propaganda. Or, put nicely, it's nothing more than opinion and conjecture |
I�ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the cause of this belief is not having read the sources thoroughly, if at all. |
Sorry, but saying renewable energy is a fraud is propaganda. Period. Don't forget what I objected to. Don't attempt to confuse the issues. The propaganda is not in any given opinion about nuclear energy, it is the disinformation inherent in claiming any other energy source is a hoax.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| You are ignoring my point: You cannot guarantee safety. Of anything. Let alone a nuclear reactor |
This truism has no practical meaning. |
Tell that to the people living around Yucca Mountain, and anywhere the ground water eventually seeps to, in 20k years. You want to ignore this future consequence. I do not. It has meaning, you are simply willing to sell the future for the present, it seems.
| Quote: |
| Um... for a discussion of energy usage you must include the issues you dismiss: who is doing the work? Who is designing the machinery? Etc. You cannot pretend they are separate. Dancer/dance... chicken/egg. |
| Quote: |
| An absolutely absurd observation. I mean this most sincerely � are you okay? A dancer and a dance are clearly, fundamentally distinct entities. |
Sorry, but this is not a clear distinction. Show me the dance sans dancer. Is a dance written down step-by-step on paper meaningful? Not really. Until someone actually makes the steps, it is just an idea.
| Quote: |
| See also kitchen knife vs murder weopon, plane vs pilot/other operating staff. |
Sorry, but your analogies fail. A knife has it's full meaning intact either way: it is both in the latter. There is no confusion here. The plane, too, fully exists without the pilot.
| Quote: |
| Likewise, Chernobyl was due to ill-trained staff ignoring basic safety standards as they operated one of the former Soviet Union's flawed nuclear generators. |
Given, but irrelevant. Unless you are arguing only Russians ever make mistakes and human error will never be an issue, this is silly to discuss. With nuclear energy, the consequences are so huge that even a .0001 percent chance is something to be taken seriously.
Again, you cannot separate nuclear power from the personnel. Going back to the airplane: the airplane exists without the pilot. The SAFETY of flying, however is a function of both, and, thus, for the issue of SAFETY, they are inseparable. Weakest link and all that.
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Tue May 29, 2007 5:41 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Look, son. You're not too bright, and can't get over issues you were wrong about months ago. Get over it already. Quit chasing me around the board making false allegations. Makes you look stupid. |
I'm sorry but your paranoia that when someone occasionally debates you then the person is stalking you only makes you look stupid.
| Quote: |
| "Officials state that the waste containers will be stored in such a way as to minimize or even nearly eliminate this possibility" does NOT equal "eliminates." Thus, no matter how you slice it, that waste WILL be getting into the environment in the future. |
Sorry, they don't speak in absolutes that your require.
| Quote: |
| and willing to sacrifice the future for YOUR comfort. Not a very moral or ethical stance. |
What are you giving up to secure the future?
| Quote: |
| Get off the thread, troll. Your only reason for being here is to take a jab at me. You have failed. Get lost. |
Seriously, get over yourself. This whining and braying whenever someone dares challenge you is damn pathetic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Got anything on the topic? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
