Gary Johnson.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-06-2016, 07:52 AM
RE: Gary Johnson.
(10-06-2016 06:18 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  I'm serious. The risks are too high in relation to the consequences. And not just in relation to the nuclear power planet itself but all stages of dealing with radioactive material.
Human error, machine failure, terrorism, natural disasters (look what happened in Japan).

I'm not saying the oil or coal is any better. I get that the pollution those plants emit are causing huge issues. But you're replacing fire with a live grenade.

We need to develop renewable energy sources and we need to be smarter about how we do it. ie: legislating that all new houses built be installed with solar panels.
And offer grants and incentives for people to install solar panels on their homes. But also not just solar panels, but things like insulation and double glazing to keep houses warmer reducing the need for electricity. Also has the added bonus of keeping people healthier, especially children. Especially poor children who are more likely to develop breathing conditions such as asthma because they're more likely to live in cold damp houses.

There's a cost to any form of energy including solar. Cost of fabrication of the panels is not cheap - environmental cost as well as monetary. I do think that clean, free energy like solar power is the way to go, but there are severe technical challenges. Example: electricity cannot easily be stored once generated - not the quantities of electricity that a typical power station produces. There are solutions to that being gradually adopted, but currently that's the status quo. Relying entirely on e.g. solar means that if you have a rainy season country wide, your power output falls. If on the other hand you produce surplus most of it will be wasted - you can if you're lucky sell it off to someone else who needs it.

The issue with renewable energy *is* that it's typically unpredictable what your supply is gonna be. In any power grid you typically need several stable sources of power to supplement the unpredictable ones. Predicting demand for power is also tricky, and it's only made trickier when all your power sources might get turned off by a cloud.

Compare that with a nuclear power station, it's a power company's wet dream. Sure you produce a small amount of dangerous waste, but in exchange you get vast power, predictable and controllable.

Another factor to consider is that you have to choose an option - people *want* cheap power, there are millions of people who need it. Eskom (the state power company in SA) was the 9th largest polluter *in the world* a few years ago. I don't know if that's changed. That was all coal fired power stations. Nuclear energy is *pretty goddamn clean* compared to coal.

The issues that you raised are problematic, but they're not insurmountable and the tradeoff calculation might indicate that nuclear is a good option.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
10-06-2016, 09:39 AM
RE: Gary Johnson.
(10-06-2016 07:52 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(10-06-2016 06:18 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  I'm serious. The risks are too high in relation to the consequences. And not just in relation to the nuclear power planet itself but all stages of dealing with radioactive material.
Human error, machine failure, terrorism, natural disasters (look what happened in Japan).

I'm not saying the oil or coal is any better. I get that the pollution those plants emit are causing huge issues. But you're replacing fire with a live grenade.

We need to develop renewable energy sources and we need to be smarter about how we do it. ie: legislating that all new houses built be installed with solar panels.
And offer grants and incentives for people to install solar panels on their homes. But also not just solar panels, but things like insulation and double glazing to keep houses warmer reducing the need for electricity. Also has the added bonus of keeping people healthier, especially children. Especially poor children who are more likely to develop breathing conditions such as asthma because they're more likely to live in cold damp houses.

There's a cost to any form of energy including solar. Cost of fabrication of the panels is not cheap - environmental cost as well as monetary. I do think that clean, free energy like solar power is the way to go, but there are severe technical challenges. Example: electricity cannot easily be stored once generated - not the quantities of electricity that a typical power station produces. There are solutions to that being gradually adopted, but currently that's the status quo. Relying entirely on e.g. solar means that if you have a rainy season country wide, your power output falls. If on the other hand you produce surplus most of it will be wasted - you can if you're lucky sell it off to someone else who needs it.

The issue with renewable energy *is* that it's typically unpredictable what your supply is gonna be. In any power grid you typically need several stable sources of power to supplement the unpredictable ones. Predicting demand for power is also tricky, and it's only made trickier when all your power sources might get turned off by a cloud.

Compare that with a nuclear power station, it's a power company's wet dream. Sure you produce a small amount of dangerous waste, but in exchange you get vast power, predictable and controllable.

Another factor to consider is that you have to choose an option - people *want* cheap power, there are millions of people who need it. Eskom (the state power company in SA) was the 9th largest polluter *in the world* a few years ago. I don't know if that's changed. That was all coal fired power stations. Nuclear energy is *pretty goddamn clean* compared to coal.

The issues that you raised are problematic, but they're not insurmountable and the tradeoff calculation might indicate that nuclear is a good option.

You haven't addressed the issue with nuclear power though.
The risk of using radioactive material (at all stages of the process) and the consequences it could have if something went wrong.

I'm not talking about relying solely on solar. I'm suggesting that we need to increase the amount of personal solar panels people have as a means of reducing stress on the public power grid. It's a long term plan by making all new homes have them and slowlying introducing them to existing homes and businesses.
If you reduce the demand for power you reduce the need for power plants such as coal or oil or nuclear or solar or whatever.

And it's not more expensive. Solar panels pay themselves off after a couple years. Think about how much you would save if you never had to pay the power bill.
That would also increase disposable income, standard of living and all that.
And excess power you produce can be sold back to the grid.

Ultimate goal would be no power plants at all instead every building owner has some form of power generation and they're all connected to the grid and any excess power you sell and make money and any extra you need you buy, creating a very good supply and demand fair energy market. Though obviously that is extremely far off and is a long term plan which is why we need to start early.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 10:18 AM
RE: Gary Johnson.
We need a very aggressive plan to move toward green renewable energy.

We know fossil fuel is non-renewable so therefore we know it will at some point be depleted. If we wait until necessity inspires action we won't have an energy source to help us deal with the catastrophe. The best argument for nuclear is a very compelling one: It works. Alternative energy sources is a sideline issue but it should be far and away the most pressing issue. It may sound hysterical but I'll say this anyway: Humanity as we know it stands in the balance. It's probably the most crucial challenge humankind has ever faced.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 10:24 AM
RE: Gary Johnson.
The best solution for any potentially catastrophic problem is a state of mind where you are at peace with the worst case scenario. I watched Mad Max, so that basically makes me prepared.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like yakherder's post
10-06-2016, 10:31 AM
RE: Gary Johnson.
(10-06-2016 10:24 AM)yakherder Wrote:  The best solution for any potentially catastrophic problem is a state of mind where you are at peace with the worst case scenario. I watched Mad Max, so that basically makes me prepared.

That only counts if saw the original, in the theater, very stoned.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 11:01 AM
RE: Gary Johnson.
(10-06-2016 09:39 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(10-06-2016 07:52 AM)morondog Wrote:  There's a cost to any form of energy including solar. Cost of fabrication of the panels is not cheap - environmental cost as well as monetary. I do think that clean, free energy like solar power is the way to go, but there are severe technical challenges. Example: electricity cannot easily be stored once generated - not the quantities of electricity that a typical power station produces. There are solutions to that being gradually adopted, but currently that's the status quo. Relying entirely on e.g. solar means that if you have a rainy season country wide, your power output falls. If on the other hand you produce surplus most of it will be wasted - you can if you're lucky sell it off to someone else who needs it.

The issue with renewable energy *is* that it's typically unpredictable what your supply is gonna be. In any power grid you typically need several stable sources of power to supplement the unpredictable ones. Predicting demand for power is also tricky, and it's only made trickier when all your power sources might get turned off by a cloud.

Compare that with a nuclear power station, it's a power company's wet dream. Sure you produce a small amount of dangerous waste, but in exchange you get vast power, predictable and controllable.

Another factor to consider is that you have to choose an option - people *want* cheap power, there are millions of people who need it. Eskom (the state power company in SA) was the 9th largest polluter *in the world* a few years ago. I don't know if that's changed. That was all coal fired power stations. Nuclear energy is *pretty goddamn clean* compared to coal.

The issues that you raised are problematic, but they're not insurmountable and the tradeoff calculation might indicate that nuclear is a good option.

You haven't addressed the issue with nuclear power though.
The risk of using radioactive material (at all stages of the process) and the consequences it could have if something went wrong.

I'm not talking about relying solely on solar. I'm suggesting that we need to increase the amount of personal solar panels people have as a means of reducing stress on the public power grid. It's a long term plan by making all new homes have them and slowlying introducing them to existing homes and businesses.
If you reduce the demand for power you reduce the need for power plants such as coal or oil or nuclear or solar or whatever.

And it's not more expensive. Solar panels pay themselves off after a couple years. Think about how much you would save if you never had to pay the power bill.
That would also increase disposable income, standard of living and all that.
And excess power you produce can be sold back to the grid.

Ultimate goal would be no power plants at all instead every building owner has some form of power generation and they're all connected to the grid and any excess power you sell and make money and any extra you need you buy, creating a very good supply and demand fair energy market. Though obviously that is extremely far off and is a long term plan which is why we need to start early.
The risks you mention are very real, but I would argue that they are both manageable and outweigh the potential costs by far. Consider that it took a magnitude 9.0 earthquake (of which there have only been six in recorded history) and a massive tsunami occurring at the same time to make the catastrophe in Fukushima happen. The simple fact is that in many, maybe even most parts of the world where nuclear power plants are used (e.g. France or Germany), natural disasters of this magnitude, let alone of this combination, are virtually impossible due to their location on the tectonic plates. Japan just happens to be an island with a very unfortunate positioning on the globe. Another thing to consider is that nuclear energy is getting more safe over time, not less. The R&D roadmap in the industry foresees that we will have an even safer generation of nuclear power plants available as early as 2030-2040.

[Image: quakeplates.jpg]

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 06:59 PM
RE: Gary Johnson.
(10-06-2016 11:01 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(10-06-2016 09:39 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  You haven't addressed the issue with nuclear power though.
The risk of using radioactive material (at all stages of the process) and the consequences it could have if something went wrong.

I'm not talking about relying solely on solar. I'm suggesting that we need to increase the amount of personal solar panels people have as a means of reducing stress on the public power grid. It's a long term plan by making all new homes have them and slowlying introducing them to existing homes and businesses.
If you reduce the demand for power you reduce the need for power plants such as coal or oil or nuclear or solar or whatever.

And it's not more expensive. Solar panels pay themselves off after a couple years. Think about how much you would save if you never had to pay the power bill.
That would also increase disposable income, standard of living and all that.
And excess power you produce can be sold back to the grid.

Ultimate goal would be no power plants at all instead every building owner has some form of power generation and they're all connected to the grid and any excess power you sell and make money and any extra you need you buy, creating a very good supply and demand fair energy market. Though obviously that is extremely far off and is a long term plan which is why we need to start early.
The risks you mention are very real, but I would argue that they are both manageable and outweigh the potential costs by far. Consider that it took a magnitude 9.0 earthquake (of which there have only been six in recorded history) and a massive tsunami occurring at the same time to make the catastrophe in Fukushima happen. The simple fact is that in many, maybe even most parts of the world where nuclear power plants are used (e.g. France or Germany), natural disasters of this magnitude, let alone of this combination, are virtually impossible due to their location on the tectonic plates. Japan just happens to be an island with a very unfortunate positioning on the globe. Another thing to consider is that nuclear energy is getting more safe over time, not less. The R&D roadmap in the industry foresees that we will have an even safer generation of nuclear power plants available as early as 2030-2040.

[Image: quakeplates.jpg]

A massive tsunami often follows a massive earthquake. We often get tsunami warnings as a result of some earthquake somewhere in the pacific or in countries that neighbor the pacific.

My biggest concern isn't natural disasters though. My biggest concern is human error. And not just at the plant like what happened at Chernobyl, but through the entire process. And especially where they keep the nuclear waste.

Can you guarantee absolutely nothing will happen, either through human error or terrorism, for the next however many hundred of years we use nuclear power?
What happens when some terrorist group crash a plane into a nuclear power plant?
You gonna be fine with breathing the resulting radioactive dust cloud? I'm sure nobody even imagined they'd crash a couple planes into the two tallest buildings in the world yet they did.

We can only make it so safe. We can't prepare for the unknown and considering the resulting consequences (a large radioactive dust cloud floating around Europe for example causing generations of birth deformities and massive spike in cancer) are so drastic and so long lasting (that shit don't break down, at least we can deal with co2) I don't understand how people can defend it when there are better options.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 08:51 PM
RE: Gary Johnson.
What I can guarantee is that we're all gonna die regardless. In the meantime, just give me my damn power. I've got first world shit to do.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 10:38 PM
RE: Gary Johnson.
Quote: at least we can deal with co2

No we can't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 10:49 PM
RE: Gary Johnson.
Nuclear plants in America are designed to withstand (in theory) a direct hit from an airliner.

Sure wouldn't want to stress-test it, though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: