Re: Energy


#1

it takes more electricity to separate hydrogen and oxygen than what is in the end product. Same goes for hemp oil. This is the reason we are not driving around in hydrogen/hemp fueled cars by now. We wont be using these alternatives until we’ve used up all the fossil fuel first.


#2

Right, so let’s start building more nuclear power plants.

I’m completely serious.


#3

I’m with ya its very clean not like 21 years ago, not like chernobyl, its way safer…

[original attachment deleted after 2 years]


#4

It’s not perfect, but it’s the best we’ve got :wink:


#5

Bashing nuclear energy because of Chernobyl isn’t very intellectually honest.  It’s like saying driving is unsafe, because so many people die every year from car accidents.  Or working in office buildings is unsafe because of 9-11.

Nuclear energy is very safe and doesn’t pollute at all (compared to the devastation of the Tar Sands).


#6

It’s just scary.  I mean, you gotta admit that it’s scary…

Sharks are scary too, but as long as you’re careful around them you should be safe.  But if you’re not careful, you could get horribly disfigured.

It’s reasonable for people to be scared.


#7

That’s the craziest thing I’ve heard today.  This fear isn’t rational. 

People are afraid, sure.  But they don’t really put much thought into it, do they?  How many people killed in Chernobyl?  How many people killed every year in North America due to smoking, or driving?

Which one scares people the most?

How many reactors are working just fine without blowing up?

It’s irrational fear for sure, not “reasonable” at all.

How many people have been killed by explosions in Canada’s nuclear reactors?


#8

We should respect nuclear energy but not fear it.  You’re quick to point out Chernobyle but how many people have died in gas plant explosions, how many fish have been displaced in hydroelectric projects, etc etc.  That’s not even getting into the possible long term effects, and current (smog, acid rain), from the increased rates of carbon dioxide being emitted into our atmosphere. 

Anyway, I digress.  No matter how you cut it we need energy and like it or not nuclear is a relatively good option.  Look past the stigma of ‘nuclear’ and you might recognize it as a relatively clean and viable source of energy. 


#9

um sorry people if you got the wrong impression, I said it was safer then 21 years ago,  i mean we had  Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island incident since then we haven’t…but the effects of those two incidents have carried on, and will for gererations.

that’s the fear of them…

On one side we have numbers that subject that over 500,000 people could die

[quote]United Nations nuclear and health watchdogs have ignored evidence of deaths, cancers, mutations and other conditions after the Chernobyl accident, leading scientists and doctors have claimed in the run-up to the nuclear disaster’s 20th anniversary next month.
In a series of reports about to be published, they will suggest that at least 30,000 people are expected to die of cancers linked directly to severe radiation exposure in 1986 and up to 500,000 people may have already died as a result of the world’s worst environmental catastrophe. [/quote]

On the other side we see that

[quote] the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organisation say that only 50 deaths can be directly attributed to the disaster, and that, at most, 4,000 people may eventually die from the accident on April 26 1986.
They say only nine children have died of thyroid cancers in 20 years and that the majority of illnesses among the estimated 5 million people contaminated in the former Soviet Union are attributable to growing poverty and unhealthy lifestyles. [/quote]

Now for the independent studies.

[quote] The new estimates have been collated by researchers commissioned by European parliamentary groups, Greenpeace International and medical foundations in Britain, Germany, Ukraine, Scandinavia and elsewhere. They take into account more than 50 published scientific studies.

“At least 500,000 people - perhaps more - have already died out of the 2 million people who were officially classed as victims of Chernobyl in Ukraine,” said Nikolai Omelyanets, deputy head of the National Commission for Radiation Protection in Ukraine. "[Studies show] that 34,499 people who took part in the clean-up of Chernobyl have died in the years since the catastrophe. The deaths of these people from cancers was nearly three times as high as in the rest of the population.

“We have found that infant mortality increased 20% to 30% because of chronic exposure to radiation after the accident. All this information has been ignored by the IAEA and WHO. We sent it to them in March last year and again in June. They’ve not said why they haven’t accepted it.” [/quote]

So to that end my friends; nuclear reactors are safer then 20  or even 30 years ago, but the effects of one accident will linger on for generations.

and what about the waste from a reactor, spent nuclear rods and hard water… they still digging holes and covering them up or dumping them into the ocean? how is it delt with now?


#10

On the other side of the argument, is the importance that byproducts of the nuclear industry are providing to medical science.  The recent shutdown of the Chalk River plant in Ontario seems to have thrown the entire nuclear medicine field into turmoil as the shortage of isotopes has resulted in cancelled sessions.

Then again, the less stable countries of the world like Pakistan, India, Iran etc, all seem to use material from nuclear plants for other than neighbourhood needs eh… Something else to worry about. 

Like Mig said a ways back in this thread there haven’t been many nuclear reactors of late blowing up, in fact they seem to have a fairly reliable safety record.

Of course safeguards need to be in place, so you have to wonder about the Harper Governments decision to fire up Chalk River again without the auxiallary back up power source in place, but then again, the chances of an earthquake toppling the place which seems to be the main fear is fairly remote. So perhaps they aren’t taking as large a risk as some seem to think.

For the most part the nuclear power industry is clean, safe  and one that Canada was a leading developer of in recent years, if we’re going to get back to being a more environmentally responsible corner of the world, it may be that the nuclear plants offer the best opportunity. 


#11

There’s a big hollowed mountain nearby that would be perfect for a nuke. Dragging Chernobyl into every argument against is like using S American logging practices and Congolese gold mining practices against those in BC…


#12

Watson Island?

Nuclear power plant.


#13

due to a fault zone that runs by here no more then 50 miles, it would be a great place to build one.
:stuck_out_tongue:


#14

You’re not afraid for the citizens,  you’re just afraid the wolves will turn into werewolves and acquire a taste for human flesh.  Then we’d have to exterminate them.


#15

But at least they will glow so we can see then better


#16

Y a and I could track them easer, anyone have silver bullets, will need them I only have bear spray and a air horn right now…lol


#17

[quote=“MiG”]
Nuclear energy is very safe and doesn’t pollute at all (compared to the devastation of the Tar Sands). [/quote]

gasp…MiG…wow…I thought you were…well…SMARTER than that.

When the waste of an energy source remains poisonous for one to ten (or more) GENERATIONS, methinks it is pollution.

I realize the immediate ‘pollution’ is much less, but terms like “oh, my great great great…grandchildren can finally be clear of this garbage” should NEVER be acceptable.


#18

[quote=“MiG”]
It’s irrational fear for sure, not “reasonable” at all. [/quote]

If 1000 years of toxic is not something that it is reasonable to be concerned about…what is?


#19

That’s the very argument that’s put us 35 years behind in finding a solution.
Just like you can place gravel beds and fish ladders when building a hydro dam, there’s no reason we shouldn’t be able to make a reactor that depletes the spent fuel or a process that recycles it for re-use.
It’s sad that Iran and N Korea are learning Step One at the same time we’re busy forgetting steps 9, 10 and 11.
With the end of the Cold War and the restrictions on civilian reactor use, we’ve knee-capped the potential financial profit in nuclear research and fucked ourselves. Just look at the Chalk River / medical isotope shortage as a wake up call.

EDIT: I guess MiG thinks like me: the waste is a known problem. But when you run it to a problem, you don’t just abandon all, you look for the best solution to the problem. And with the environmental awareness growing, it’s gonna be a better solution than they had in the 70s (make it into bombs, launch it into space)


#20

I can live with that kind of shortage.  But I doubt I could live with this kind :astonished: