BF2S Forums Nuclear power

its just too dangerous. you can have all the safeguards in the world but accidents happen

Balok77 wrote:

Do the benefits outweigh the dangers?

So far man has extracted roughly 11 billion barrels of oil from the earth with roughly 7 billion left. What will we do when the oil runs out? To power England alone we would need 100,000 wind turbines, can u imagine the visual effect that would have on our country?

Already countries like France almost completely survive on nuclear power, is it a valid option for countries to use instead of oil, or is it simply to dangerous.


Discuss

I'm for using every alternative there is to oil.  Unfortunately, Big Oil doesn't like that idea, so they do everything possible to keep us addicted.

Nuclear, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and solar energy are all options we should have on the table.  We must end the tax incentives and subsidies that oil production and exploration get, and then replace said things with incentives and subsidies to the alternatives.  THAT will lessen our oil dependence and clean up much of our pollution issues.

golgoj4 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Balok77 wrote:

Do the benefits outweigh the dangers?

So far man has extracted roughly 11 billion barrels of oil from the earth with roughly 7 billion left. What will we do when the oil runs out? To power England alone we would need 100,000 wind turbines, can u imagine the visual effect that would have on our country?

Already countries like France almost completely survive on nuclear power, is it a valid option for countries to use instead of oil, or is it simply to dangerous.


Discuss

I'm for using every alternative there is to oil.  Unfortunately, Big Oil doesn't like that idea, so they do everything possible to keep us addicted.

Nuclear, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and solar energy are all options we should have on the table.  We must end the tax incentives and subsidies that oil production and exploration get, and then replace said things with incentives and subsidies to the alternatives.  THAT will lessen our oil dependence and clean up much of our pollution issues.

The question is, who the hell will have the balls to lead that political charge.

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but honestly, Al Gore, Ralph Nader, and Dennis Kucinich.  All of them are basically unelectable though.

Nevertheless, I'm still probably going to vote for Nader.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Solution to 80% of the worlds present and future problems - use a condom.

Condoms FTW!!!

Nuclear power is very important to continue. As with most, nuclear power is assumed fissions which puts out all the radioactive waste but they are getting close to fusion which could solve the worlds energy needs for everything.

For the past 30 years, there has been a perception, sometimes reinforced by actions and statements, that the US Democratic Party is reflexively anti-nuclear. At the same time, it has been the perception, sometimes reinforced with words, if not action, that the Republican Party at least wants to "keep the nuclear option open".

President George W. Bush said the nation "must start building nuclear power plants." He described them as a "key part of a clean, secure energy future." The Nuclear Energy Institute notes that President Bush became the first sitting U.S. president to visit a nuclear plant in 26 years when he delivered an energy policy speech last June at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear station in Maryland.

The president's call for new nuclear plants is a challenge that the industry is well-positioned to meet, said NEI Chairman Anthony Earley Jr., chairman and CEO of DTE Energy.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?P … 0519b.html



Also, just 44% of Americans support the idea of promoting nuclear power to address the country's energy needs, while 49% are opposed. Most Democrats oppose these proposals and most Republicans favor them, but the parties themselves are hardly unified. For example, while roughly four-in-ten Democrats favor promoting nuclear power, an equal number of Republicans oppose the idea. Similarly, while 57% of Democrats oppose allowing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a third supports the proposal - hardly a unified party position. These internal conflicts within both parties over the specifics of environmental protection and energy development pose a potential roadblock to consensus on policy alternatives.

Kmarion wrote:

For the past 30 years, there has been a perception, sometimes reinforced by actions and statements, that the US Democratic Party is reflexively anti-nuclear. At the same time, it has been the perception, sometimes reinforced with words, if not action, that the Republican Party at least wants to "keep the nuclear option open".

President George W. Bush said the nation "must start building nuclear power plants." He described them as a "key part of a clean, secure energy future." The Nuclear Energy Institute notes that President Bush became the first sitting U.S. president to visit a nuclear plant in 26 years when he delivered an energy policy speech last June at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear station in Maryland.

The president's call for new nuclear plants is a challenge that the industry is well-positioned to meet, said NEI Chairman Anthony Earley Jr., chairman and CEO of DTE Energy.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?P … 0519b.html

http://i18.tinypic.com/4v7yuqu.gif

Also, just 44% of Americans support the idea of promoting nuclear power to address the country's energy needs, while 49% are opposed. Most Democrats oppose these proposals and most Republicans favor them, but the parties themselves are hardly unified. For example, while roughly four-in-ten Democrats favor promoting nuclear power, an equal number of Republicans oppose the idea. Similarly, while 57% of Democrats oppose allowing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a third supports the proposal - hardly a unified party position. These internal conflicts within both parties over the specifics of environmental protection and energy development pose a potential roadblock to consensus on policy alternatives.

Good points...  Aside from corporate resistance to progressive energy alternatives and solutions, there is also the problem of ignorance.

If nothing else, I can at least say that Bush did something right in promoting nuclear energy.  It's one of the few things I can agree with him on.

psychotoxic187 wrote:

BN wrote:

its just too dangerous. you can have all the safeguards in the world but accidents happen

That is entirely not true. Nuclear power plants in the US have never had a fatality, during operation or during new construction. They also have ways of recycling the waste to reuse for power now.

In addition to this, Canada has proven that nuclear power is a clean and efficient means of providing energy.  If we actually do make the switch to nuclear power on a national scale, we can use their system as a good role model.

psychotoxic187 wrote:

BN wrote:

its just too dangerous. you can have all the safeguards in the world but accidents happen

That is entirely not true. Nuclear power plants in the US have never had a fatality, during operation or during new construction. They also have ways of recycling the waste to reuse for power now.

Nuclear power is clean and safe, and reusable.. The only time I can think of something going wrong is when Russia made that one that leaked and the government didn't tell anyone. The US Navy (and I'm guessing others) are using nuclear powered ships now and nothing has happened. Nuclear energy is completely safe and will save money. Why is it the Dems want nuclear power plants to be given a chance in Iran but don't want any here?

Miller wrote:

psychotoxic187 wrote:

BN wrote:

its just too dangerous. you can have all the safeguards in the world but accidents happen

That is entirely not true. Nuclear power plants in the US have never had a fatality, during operation or during new construction. They also have ways of recycling the waste to reuse for power now.

Nuclear power is clean and safe, and reusable.. The only time I can think of something going wrong is when Russia made that one that leaked and the government didn't tell anyone. The US Navy (and I'm guessing others) are using nuclear powered ships now and nothing has happened. Nuclear energy is completely safe and will save money. Why is it the Dems want nuclear power plants to be given a chance in Iran but don't want any here?

That is because the (sorry, can't think of another term) tree-hugging hippies in the Democrat Party do not want the evil nuclear power which poisons the earth and produces waste that will be radioactive for thousands of years, and the US does not have a good plan to get rid of the waste(of course, that is because they fight tooth and nails to block any attempt to create a good plan to deal with the waste).

It is a decades old issue that I think is being fought by reflex by the greenies in the Dem party.

Balok77 wrote:

Do the benefits outweigh the dangers?

So far man has extracted roughly 11 billion barrels of oil from the earth with roughly 7 billion left.

I think that's only oil in the ME... Ever heard of black gold stranglehold? Theres a shit load of oil underneath Australia and Central US.

Nuclear power is not clean in every sense.  It requires heavy cooling from water sources (Usually a nearby stream or the like).  Raises the temp a degree or two and then you have another issue in the ecological system.  The wastes are still not recycled except for bombs and there is still a surplus of the shit.  Most of it is dumped, god knows where in barrels that will break down within 100 years and cause yet another issue from leaks.  Currently Sweden have the best solution to the wastes it extracts by burying it about a kilometer underground and backfilling it with loads of concrete but it still doesn't really solve the issue in a permanant sense, just a little longer.

Nuclear is not clean!  It's as dirty as any other fuel source, just at a later stage of it's life cycle.  Solar, wind and anything that requires natures efforts to power it are a much better long term solution.   

Condoms and sterilization and/or penalties for offenders using a numbers policy on births per couple.  China have it.  Won't know if it works for at least a generation though.  Yeah, it sounds very dictating because it is but it will be guaranteed to work in the long term if anybody is actually serious about recifying our ever growing global population beyond levels that the world can cater for.   This would have to be high on the list for sucess but it seems our goverments want more bloody humans that will consume more and more.  When does the buck stop?

Sweden shut down one of its nuclear plants since the danes had been complaining forever that their capital would be fucked if a accident would happen. Anyway since its shut down we lost power power that we got from the danes that got that power from............Coal hmm what one of those are more dangerous?