|
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 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:34 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Subtitle wrote: |
I'm perfectly willing to concede that nuclear power could be safe, but unfortunately we don't have Vulcans to run them. Humans, with their corruption, greed, and incompetence seem unable to run this industry competently. |
So no energy, then. Nuclear is the least deadly form of power, at least compared to fossil fuels. |
That is, until a reactor melts down and multiple facilities explode, rendering huge swaths of land uninhabitable, destroying the economy, contaminating the ecosystem, and sending cancer rates through the roof.
Japan has some of the best clean coal technology on earth. Coal is the best energy source around, much better and cheaper than nuclear. Practically all the particulate is filtered out and CO2 is good for the environment to boot. The Japanese should have been burning coal all along (or developing alternative energy sources like geothermal, which is essentially limitless) and not building GE nuke plants containing weapons grade Plutonium on highly active fault lines where tsunamis hit. All remaining nuke plants there should be scrapped. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Menino80
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Japan's Safe Nuclear Myth
http://the-diplomat.com/tokyo-notes/2011/03/25/japans-safe-nuclear-myth/
| Quote: |
| The vulnerability of nuclear reactors to earthquakes was already evident, however, after TEPCO's Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant on the northwest coast suffered several malfunctions, including a fire in a transformer and a small radiation leak into the ocean, following a magnitude 6.8 earthquake that hit the region in July 2007. Despite this serious accident, TEPCO officials still arrogantly boasted of their world-beating nuclear power technology |
| Quote: |
| The strong feeling in Tokyo, among politicians and scientists alike, was that Japan had neglected scientific research during the war. Indeed, many believed their nation was defeated in World War II by US technological prowess, exemplified above all by the United States' evident mastery of nuclear physics. |
| Quote: |
| Despite many accidents since, their seriousness was effectively covered up by altering data records and falsifying reports to the government. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Menino80 wrote: |
Japan's Safe Nuclear Myth
http://the-diplomat.com/tokyo-notes/2011/03/25/japans-safe-nuclear-myth/
| Quote: |
| The vulnerability of nuclear reactors to earthquakes was already evident, however, after TEPCO's Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant on the northwest coast suffered several malfunctions, including a fire in a transformer and a small radiation leak into the ocean, following a magnitude 6.8 earthquake that hit the region in July 2007. Despite this serious accident, TEPCO officials still arrogantly boasted of their world-beating nuclear power technology |
| Quote: |
| The strong feeling in Tokyo, among politicians and scientists alike, was that Japan had neglected scientific research during the war. Indeed, many believed their nation was defeated in World War II by US technological prowess, exemplified above all by the United States' evident mastery of nuclear physics. |
| Quote: |
| Despite many accidents since, their seriousness was effectively covered up by altering data records and falsifying reports to the government. |
|
The problems, as I mentioned in my first post on this thread, are political. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Menino80
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Indubitably, but that's like saying the problems with language education are political, or the problems with financial regulation or economic policy are political.
Nuclear power's detractors are not unaware of the politics behind the nuclear power industry and the lack of regulation that is endemic to every facet of the energy industry, whether fossil fuel based or not.
It's not nuclear power, it's the nuclear power industry, which is a huge difference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Menino80 wrote: |
Indubitably, but that's like saying the problems with language education are political, or the problems with financial regulation or economic policy are political.
Nuclear power's detractors are not unaware of the politics behind the nuclear power industry and the lack of regulation that is endemic to every facet of the energy industry, whether fossil fuel based or not.
It's not nuclear power, it's the nuclear power industry, which is a huge difference. |
One of the whole reasons the Yucca Mountain project stalled was FEAR OF NUCLEAR RADIATION. These fears despite the fact that natural background radiation overwhelms nuclear power radiation.
From the NYTimes article posted a few replies up thread.
| Quote: |
| �The stuff keeps piling up, and you�ve doubled the amount that you can store in a single pool, but that�s running out. Is there a long-term plan anywhere in government?� |
Indeed. Where is the leadership?
| Quote: |
| President Obama promised to cancel the project during his 2008 campaign, and last year he told the Department of Energy to withdraw an application that it had submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a construction license. |
President Obama has a knack for identifying the courageous and honest option . . . and then doing the exact opposite. But our system rewards this: Obama netted Nevada's 5 electoral votes. So because of Nevada NIMBYism, the radioactive waste is stored on site.
| Quote: |
| "Nevada's future is clean energy, not Yucca Mountain. Yet Republicans want to eliminate funding for solar and other renewable resources, while calling for $100 billion to be dumped down a hole in the desert 90 minutes from Las Vegas," Berkley said. |
Man, just when I thought the Republicans were the anti-science party.
So, tell me about the vile nuclear power industry again, Menino. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Menino80
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
So, what's your point exactly? That politicians are not honest?
So if politicians are not forthright about their intentions, or make claims during elections cycles, any accusations against industry is invalid. Got it.
I have another gem for you.
Somebody steals my bike. But the police officer who take the report is addicted to Aderall. Ergo, bike theft doesn't exist.
Tell us more about your vaunted logic skills Kuros. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Menino80 wrote: |
So, what's your point exactly? That politicians are not honest?
So if politicians are not forthright about their intentions, or make claims during elections cycles, any accusations against industry is invalid. Got it.
|
How is the industry supposed to isolate the nuclear waste if there is no place to isolate it? The complaint here, shared by all, is that interim on-site dry storage casks make ill-fitting depositories for nuclear waste. I believe I called the situation gross negligence. And yet the Yucca Mountain plan, which industry heads reasonably relied upon, has collapsed due to political posturing.
Who will regulate the regulators, Menino? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Menino80
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Is disposal the only critique of the industry? If they are stymied by political irregularities in one aspect of the production, that means they're A-ok? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Menino80 wrote: |
| Is disposal the only critique of the industry? If they are stymied by political irregularities in one aspect of the production, that means they're A-ok? |
No, in fact, I think we saw the Japanese nuclear industry actors behaving quite poorly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Double post
Last edited by Axiom on Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:16 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Cancer has exploded to epidemic proportions since the start of the Atomic Age. It used to be a rare cause of death - now most of us are probably going to die of it. |
Medical science was also considerably more primitive pre-atomic age.
Heart disease is still more likely to get you than cancer.
Anyhow, this will all be moot if fusion ever gets off its butt and becomes viable. |
Or thorium. It seems the Indians are leading the way here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Andy Xie on nuke power:
http://english.caing.com/2011-03-30/100243128.html
| Quote: |
In the long run, the disaster and its aftermath discredit the nuclear power industry. No matter how well a nuclear power plant is designed, risks of an unanticipated event or human error always remain significant. When a nuclear power plant breaks, the consequences can be catastrophic and long-lasting.
I had always been a big nuclear energy supporter. I argued in its favor on environmental grounds and for reasons of economic efficiency. Earth may not be able to sustain the pressure if developing countries, which now account for 80 percent of the global population, consume as much fossil fuel as developed countries while they undergo economic development. I saw nuclear power as a lesser evil and, hence, worth trying.
The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant incident changed my mind. It reminds us that human error could bring the world to an end sooner than global warming. It is virtually impossible to eliminate human error from nuclear power plant operations.
Fukushima reminds us all that overconfidence in man's ability to control nuclear power is folly. At a moment like this, we see that it would be better to give up 10 times the benefits of this plant's 40 years of power than face this catastrophe.
In the wake of the crisis, China has suspended expansion of its nuclear power industry. This was the right thing to do. Despite reassurances we've heard from many government officials, China should suspend the country's nuclear power expansion plan indefinitely and shut down existing plants located near population centers as soon as possible.
While many Chinese officials have assured the people that the nation's nuclear technology is safer than Japan's, I cannot stop thinking about the nation's other challenges in areas such as unsafe food, the world's highest traffic accident rate, and widespread product quality problems. When I stretch my imagination to the country's nuclear power plants, I'm terrified.
For now, Japan's nuclear disaster will slow or cripple nuclear power industry development around the world. Germany has decided to stop renewing operation permits for existing plants. India and the United States are rethinking their expansion programs.
Hence, the global economy will become much more dependent on fossil fuels in coming years � indefinitely. That means accelerating environmental degradation, higher costs and rising prices for fossil fuels. In the short term, Japan's demand for fossil fuels will rise, increasing global price pressure. Thus, inflation rates will rise for years to come.
The solution is for the world to consume less, not look for alternatives. That means changing lifestyles and development models to cut energy demand. It's the only way out. For China in particular, the relentless pursuit of quantity expansion must stop immediately.
China's development is extremely energy-intensive because it's export- and investment-driven. China consumes more energy than the energy-wasting United States but with 40 percent the output. China's energy-dependent model is not sustainable. Either the government will have to change its policy, or the market will force change.
China will run trade deficits when oil prices reach US$ 200 a barrel, and subsequent devaluation pressure may bring the country to a halt. |
I agree, with hesitation.
The solution to consume less isn't a solution in as much as it is a consequence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legrande
Joined: 23 Nov 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
Andy Xie on nuke power:
http://english.caing.com/2011-03-30/100243128.html
| Quote: |
In the long run, the disaster and its aftermath discredit the nuclear power industry. No matter how well a nuclear power plant is designed, risks of an unanticipated event or human error always remain significant. When a nuclear power plant breaks, the consequences can be catastrophic and long-lasting.
I had always been a big nuclear energy supporter. I argued in its favor on environmental grounds and for reasons of economic efficiency. Earth may not be able to sustain the pressure if developing countries, which now account for 80 percent of the global population, consume as much fossil fuel as developed countries while they undergo economic development. I saw nuclear power as a lesser evil and, hence, worth trying.
The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant incident changed my mind. It reminds us that human error could bring the world to an end sooner than global warming. It is virtually impossible to eliminate human error from nuclear power plant operations.
Fukushima reminds us all that overconfidence in man's ability to control nuclear power is folly. At a moment like this, we see that it would be better to give up 10 times the benefits of this plant's 40 years of power than face this catastrophe.
In the wake of the crisis, China has suspended expansion of its nuclear power industry. This was the right thing to do. Despite reassurances we've heard from many government officials, China should suspend the country's nuclear power expansion plan indefinitely and shut down existing plants located near population centers as soon as possible.
While many Chinese officials have assured the people that the nation's nuclear technology is safer than Japan's, I cannot stop thinking about the nation's other challenges in areas such as unsafe food, the world's highest traffic accident rate, and widespread product quality problems. When I stretch my imagination to the country's nuclear power plants, I'm terrified.
For now, Japan's nuclear disaster will slow or cripple nuclear power industry development around the world. Germany has decided to stop renewing operation permits for existing plants. India and the United States are rethinking their expansion programs.
Hence, the global economy will become much more dependent on fossil fuels in coming years � indefinitely. That means accelerating environmental degradation, higher costs and rising prices for fossil fuels. In the short term, Japan's demand for fossil fuels will rise, increasing global price pressure. Thus, inflation rates will rise for years to come.
The solution is for the world to consume less, not look for alternatives. That means changing lifestyles and development models to cut energy demand. It's the only way out. For China in particular, the relentless pursuit of quantity expansion must stop immediately.
China's development is extremely energy-intensive because it's export- and investment-driven. China consumes more energy than the energy-wasting United States but with 40 percent the output. China's energy-dependent model is not sustainable. Either the government will have to change its policy, or the market will force change.
China will run trade deficits when oil prices reach US$ 200 a barrel, and subsequent devaluation pressure may bring the country to a halt. |
I agree, with hesitation.
The solution to consume less isn't a solution in as much as it is a consequence. |
Which is exactly what the lunatic greenies were on about decades ago. They were real dumb, huh? No problem, technology will save us all, as always. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madigan
Joined: 15 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, but my solution would be more market orientated. I see the data emanating from the market discouraging McMansions in the exurbs and advising on people to move into smaller houses and closer to commercial centers (e.g. more urbanization.) More urbanization tend to create "natural scale economies" in relation to energy consumption. Keep in mind this is just one solution, at least in NA, and I am open to other ideas to reduce energy consumption. |
|
| 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
