Yes. In fact there's one not half an hour from here. My uncle works there.
Well, whether it's irrational or not, most people would protest rather vigorously if a nuclear power plant was proposed to be built in their town. Home values would plummet overnight.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Which leads back to my first question.
I think its largely non education of the facts.
I think its largely non education of the facts.
It doesn't matter. NIMBYism is real and has to be accounted for.Stimey wrote:
Which leads back to my first question.
I think its largely non education of the facts.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
fuck NIMBYs
e: it could just be built in the middle of nowhere...
e: it could just be built in the middle of nowhere...
Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2011-05-30 09:18:10)
Then you increase the % of power that is wasted in transit.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
fuck NIMBYs
e: it could just be built in the middle of nowhere...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
mr.hrundi wrote:
As much as I hate to respont to you with facts, cause I know quite well that brains isn't your strongest point, maybe someone else is interested: one of the threats for power plants that has been researced, is plane crashes. these can, in an really unfortunate event, happen by chance (noone though an earthquake that strong could ever hit japan), or they can happen quite intentionally, as should be known since 2001. The outcome is the same.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Meh, my guess is they've played the Chernobyl part of CoD4 too many times or they're afraid a tsunami and earthquake will come cripple their plants since the Japanese got pretty screwed.Stimey wrote:
Why are people so tinfoil hat about nuclear power?
Isn't Germany pretty free of natural disasters? It's not like they get hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes. or flooding.
Paranoid Nazis
well ya can't have your cake and eat it tooJay wrote:
Then you increase the % of power that is wasted in transit.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
fuck NIMBYs
e: it could just be built in the middle of nowhere...
Just put it through the lines at like a trillion volts.
No resistance!!!
No resistance!!!
I'm aware. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Home values would drop if any form of power generation was to be built. Nuclear, coal, incinerator, it doesn't matter. People bitch because they don't want to see smokestacks or giant wind mills. Nuclear just adds another level to the NIMBYs.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Agreed. They recently tried to put a natural gas plant in my town.Jay wrote:
I'm aware. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Home values would drop if any form of power generation was to be built. Nuclear, coal, incinerator, it doesn't matter. People bitch because they don't want to see smokestacks or giant wind mills. Nuclear just adds another level to the NIMBYs.
Pretty sure that got veto'd within a week.
Right now everyone has a sign on their lawn because they don't want a cell phone tower going up lulz.
I think what with people having such a paranoid view of nuclear power a nuclear plant would probably lower house prices more than a coal one, despite the coal plant being worse for residents health
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
I'd rather have nuclear than coal. At least with nuclear the only real harm would come from a meltdown/explosion, and I could put a bullet through my head if I knew I had terminal radiation poisoning.
Living near a coal plant would be like smoking a pack of Marlboro Reds each day.
Living near a coal plant would be like smoking a pack of Marlboro Reds each day.
all well in that case, but some of the tested power plants here in germany wouldn't even withstand the impact of a cessna, let alone something of the size of a 747. Improving the walls to make them plane-proof would cost as much as building a new one.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25vlt7swhCM
We have these things called smoke stack scrubbers. 99.9% of what is released is steam.presidentsheep wrote:
I think what with people having such a paranoid view of nuclear power a nuclear plant would probably lower house prices more than a coal one, despite the coal plant being worse for residents health
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
what about waste runoff?Jay wrote:
We have these things called smoke stack scrubbers. 99.9% of what is released is steam.presidentsheep wrote:
I think what with people having such a paranoid view of nuclear power a nuclear plant would probably lower house prices more than a coal one, despite the coal plant being worse for residents health
Same problem with nuclear...
It's an issue, but everything has environmental issues. Nuclear has nuclear waste as well as heat, coal has it's waste and also releases heat into the local water supply (and the filters have to go somewhere too). Gas is similar to coal except without the solid material waste. Wind doesn't work all the time and kills birds/bats/insects while creating noise pollution. Solar requires heavy metals in manufacturing and doesn't work at night or in the winter. Both wind and solar require caustic batteries.
So... pick your poison. Personally, natural gas fired plants seem like the clear winner to me.
So... pick your poison. Personally, natural gas fired plants seem like the clear winner to me.
Last edited by Jay (2011-05-30 10:05:08)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
re: natural/'renewable' power, don't forget the impact from harnessing all that wind power. Or tidal power. Or hydro-electric power. People seem to think that because it's natural, removing energy from the environment is inconsequential.
I think the winner would be a de-centralized energy system, with lots of small energy producing devices. a start would be solar panels on many private buildings, wind turbines in suitable spots, geothermal power generators where they work and so on. In other words: everybody produces a little bit of energy and puts it in a regionwide network.Jay wrote:
It's an issue, but everything has environmental issues. Nuclear has nuclear waste as well as heat, coal has it's waste and also releases heat into the local water supply (and the filters have to go somewhere too). Gas is similar to coal except without the solid material waste. Wind doesn't work all the time and kills birds/bats/insects while creating noise pollution. Solar requires heavy metals in manufacturing and doesn't work at night or in the winter. Both wind and solar require caustic batteries.
So... pick your poison. Personally, natural gas fired plants seem like the clear winner to me.
The factor I see working against this are the big companies. a de-centralized energy system would take away most of their profits.
Because there is unlimited energy in the world duh!
Why do people keep saying this? Where do you get your source material for your opinion? Decentralizing is much less efficient. Little boutique power plants dotting the landscape does nothing more than take up more space and require more infrastructure to be built. It doesn't make any sense. You're talking about using 50-100 times the space for the same result. It makes no sense.mr.hrundi wrote:
I think the winner would be a de-centralized energy system, with lots of small energy producing devices. a start would be solar panels on many private buildings, wind turbines in suitable spots, geothermal power generators where they work and so on. In other words: everybody produces a little bit of energy and puts it in a regionwide network.Jay wrote:
It's an issue, but everything has environmental issues. Nuclear has nuclear waste as well as heat, coal has it's waste and also releases heat into the local water supply (and the filters have to go somewhere too). Gas is similar to coal except without the solid material waste. Wind doesn't work all the time and kills birds/bats/insects while creating noise pollution. Solar requires heavy metals in manufacturing and doesn't work at night or in the winter. Both wind and solar require caustic batteries.
So... pick your poison. Personally, natural gas fired plants seem like the clear winner to me.
The factor I see working against this are the big companies. a de-centralized energy system would take away most of their profits.
Do yourself a favor and ignore what the greens say about energy. They're a bunch of morons without any scientific background. And yes, 'environmental science' is a fake science. They don't even have to take calculus or physics here
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
not as dangerous as a meltdown ffsDoctor Strangelove wrote:
I'm not talking about radiation. Coal plants produce large amount of poisonous gases, and coal mining is incredibly dangerous.presidentsheep wrote:
coal plants produce waste 100 times more radioactive than nuclear from what I remember?11 Bravo wrote:
not sure if srs
that is true but when there is a nuclear emergency................ill take my chances with coal
e: we're still talking radiation that is not even close to dangerous levels though.
But the likelihood of a meltdown isn't that great compared to the likelihood of coal plants producing poisonous gases (100%)
coal has been around for a long time and seems to be working with newer technology.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
But the likelihood of a meltdown isn't that great compared to the likelihood of coal plants producing poisonous gases (100%)
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2011-05-30 10:26:35)