What Happens when America can no longer feed the world?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-07-2014, 10:10 AM (This post was last modified: 08-07-2014 12:09 PM by cjlr.)
RE: What Happens when America can no longer feed the world?
(08-07-2014 12:14 AM)sporehux Wrote:  
(08-07-2014 12:00 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  Ask that and it wouldn't surprise me if you got the response 'Chernobyl'.

Nuclear power does not kill people, Russian incompetence kills people.

Chernobyl is Ukrainian.
(Soviet I'd give you - but even the freaking Soviet Union only had the one major disaster; and much like Fukushima required that everything that could go wrong did)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2014, 12:09 PM
RE: What Happens when America can no longer feed the world?
(08-07-2014 06:36 AM)DeepThought Wrote:  Nuclear power is allot cleaner and safer than coal power. You could add in all the deaths from anything nuclear including chernobyl, nagasaki and hiroshima and nuclear power still comes off smelling like a rose.

Most people don't consider the deaths from coal power, because the pollutants are considered natural and normal.

Yes, yes and YES.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2014, 11:04 PM
RE: What Happens when America can no longer feed the world?
(08-07-2014 12:14 AM)sporehux Wrote:  
(08-07-2014 12:00 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  Ask that and it wouldn't surprise me if you got the response 'Chernobyl'.

Nuclear power does not kill people, Russian incompetence kills people.

That was incompetence yes, but the thing in Japan with the tsunami wasn't.
The issue with nuclear power is that the risk is there, no matter how remote, and when something does go wrong it really goes wrong. Radiation takes an extremely long time to go away and has really nasty side effects for generations.

What happened in Japan was unforeseeable but that's exactly the problem, you can't account for every situation. Natural disaster, war, terrorism etc.. are all factors that could effect a nuclear power plant.

Not to mention nuclear waste is nasty shit and an unavoidable byproduct of nuclear power.

The consequences of something going wrong are too extreme IMO. The risk doesn't outway the consequences. Especially when renewable sources of energy are available, hydro, thermal, wind, solar which all are clean, green and most importantly safe with no nasty byproduct.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
14-07-2014, 02:38 AM
RE: What Happens when America can no longer feed the world?
(13-07-2014 11:04 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(08-07-2014 12:14 AM)sporehux Wrote:  Nuclear power does not kill people, Russian incompetence kills people.

That was incompetence yes, but the thing in Japan with the tsunami wasn't.
The issue with nuclear power is that the risk is there, no matter how remote, and when something does go wrong it really goes wrong. Radiation takes an extremely long time to go away and has really nasty side effects for generations.

What happened in Japan was unforeseeable but that's exactly the problem, you can't account for every situation. Natural disaster, war, terrorism etc.. are all factors that could effect a nuclear power plant.

Not to mention nuclear waste is nasty shit and an unavoidable byproduct of nuclear power.

The consequences of something going wrong are too extreme IMO. The risk doesn't outway the consequences. Especially when renewable sources of energy are available, hydro, thermal, wind, solar which all are clean, green and most importantly safe with no nasty byproduct.

Yes the 0 people killed are not worth the best cleanest energy source that is currently viable being used.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2014, 04:46 AM
RE: What Happens when America can no longer feed the world?
(14-07-2014 02:38 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(13-07-2014 11:04 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  That was incompetence yes, but the thing in Japan with the tsunami wasn't.
The issue with nuclear power is that the risk is there, no matter how remote, and when something does go wrong it really goes wrong. Radiation takes an extremely long time to go away and has really nasty side effects for generations.

What happened in Japan was unforeseeable but that's exactly the problem, you can't account for every situation. Natural disaster, war, terrorism etc.. are all factors that could effect a nuclear power plant.

Not to mention nuclear waste is nasty shit and an unavoidable byproduct of nuclear power.

The consequences of something going wrong are too extreme IMO. The risk doesn't outway the consequences. Especially when renewable sources of energy are available, hydro, thermal, wind, solar which all are clean, green and most importantly safe with no nasty byproduct.

Yes the 0 people killed are not worth the best cleanest energy source that is currently viable being used.

Radiation has other effects besides immediate death.
Cancer, birth defects etc..

And what happened in Japan shows the vulnerability of nuclear power. Besides, even without what happened in Japan my point still stands.

And it's not the best cleanest energy source we have. It produces nuclear waste so to call it clean is a stretch.

Nuclear power is a quick no hassle fix. If governments were smart (which they're often not) they'd make solar panels on new houses compulsory and subsidize home owners who wish to purchase solar panels for their houses as well as subsidize things that effect power consumption such as home insulation.

You need a combination of reform aimed at more efficient use of power and a switch from dirty coal and oil and nuclear plants to solar/thermal/wind/hydro where possible. There should be little need for coal/oil and no need for nuclear.
In the long run it's the better option (as opposed to full nuclear) because it's cheaper, it's cleaner, it's easier to build and develop and it's safer. It's not an overnight solution, it does take time obviously, but it's entirely doable. You can't say "nuclear power is good now" because you need to look into the future and what's best for the future and green energy (solar/wind/thermal/hydro) is the way to go.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
14-07-2014, 07:47 AM
RE: What Happens when America can no longer feed the world?
(14-07-2014 04:46 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(14-07-2014 02:38 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yes the 0 people killed are not worth the best cleanest energy source that is currently viable being used.

Radiation has other effects besides immediate death.
Cancer, birth defects etc..

And what happened in Japan shows the vulnerability of nuclear power. Besides, even without what happened in Japan my point still stands.

And it's not the best cleanest energy source we have. It produces nuclear waste so to call it clean is a stretch.

Nuclear power is a quick no hassle fix. If governments were smart (which they're often not) they'd make solar panels on new houses compulsory and subsidize home owners who wish to purchase solar panels for their houses as well as subsidize things that effect power consumption such as home insulation.

You need a combination of reform aimed at more efficient use of power and a switch from dirty coal and oil and nuclear plants to solar/thermal/wind/hydro where possible. There should be little need for coal/oil and no need for nuclear.
In the long run it's the better option (as opposed to full nuclear) because it's cheaper, it's cleaner, it's easier to build and develop and it's safer. It's not an overnight solution, it does take time obviously, but it's entirely doable. You can't say "nuclear power is good now" because you need to look into the future and what's best for the future and green energy (solar/wind/thermal/hydro) is the way to go.

I see facts be damned. The anti-nuclear nonsense is just leftist hysteria nothing more. Nuclear power is viable right now and would cause a massive decrease in death if it was switched to immediately. Solar power as it stands right now is not, it's not just the lack of infrastructure it is just not efficient enough. So we could massively push back climate change now or we could hope and pray that a miracle will somehow save us because science is scarry.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
14-07-2014, 08:37 AM
RE: What Happens when America can no longer feed the world?
(14-07-2014 04:46 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(14-07-2014 02:38 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yes the 0 people killed are not worth the best cleanest energy source that is currently viable being used.

Radiation has other effects besides immediate death.
Cancer, birth defects etc..

Plane flights and x-rays are both far more prevalent and dangerous sources of radiation.

Of deaths directly attributable to nuclear infrastructure there are dozens. Compare that to the literal mountains of corpses coal mining has generated: tens of thousands in this millenium alone.

(14-07-2014 04:46 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  And what happened in Japan shows the vulnerability of nuclear power. Besides, even without what happened in Japan my point still stands.

That just means you don't have a point. "X because Y, and nevermind Y!"

(14-07-2014 04:46 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  And it's not the best cleanest energy source we have. It produces nuclear waste so to call it clean is a stretch.

Nuclear waste on the order of grams. Which is dangerous if you eat it, but properly disposed of has the advantage of not dramatically altering the climate of the entire planet.

(14-07-2014 04:46 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Nuclear power is a quick no hassle fix.

Exactly.

(14-07-2014 04:46 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  If governments were smart (which they're often not) they'd make solar panels on new houses compulsory and subsidize home owners who wish to purchase solar panels for their houses as well as subsidize things that effect power consumption such as home insulation.

Every developed country - even the United States - does have programs rewarding increased consumer energy efficiency.

Of course, household consumption is only a tiny fraction of overall usage...

(14-07-2014 04:46 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  You need a combination of reform aimed at more efficient use of power and a switch from dirty coal and oil and nuclear plants to solar/thermal/wind/hydro where possible.

We have both those things. What we don't have is time, which they'll both take lots of.

(14-07-2014 04:46 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  There should be little need for coal/oil and no need for nuclear.
In the long run it's the better option (as opposed to full nuclear) because it's cheaper, it's cleaner, it's easier to build and develop and it's safer. It's not an overnight solution, it does take time obviously, but it's entirely doable. You can't say "nuclear power is good now" because you need to look into the future and what's best for the future and green energy (solar/wind/thermal/hydro) is the way to go.

Solar panels are too expensive and inefficient to supply the entire grid. Also they don't work at night, which is a problem without a great solution as of yet. The implicitly necessary backup technology does not exist. A purely solar grid is unworkable.

So what do you propose for the intervening thirty years?

Nobody, ever, has said "nuclear power forever!". It's simply an existing, proven, safe technology, more than capable of meeting existing (and growing!) demand until such a time as fully renewable sources are viable (which they are not).

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
14-07-2014, 08:53 AM (This post was last modified: 14-07-2014 08:58 AM by cjlr.)
RE: What Happens when America can no longer feed the world?
(13-07-2014 11:04 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(08-07-2014 12:14 AM)sporehux Wrote:  Nuclear power does not kill people, Russian incompetence kills people.

That was incompetence yes, but the thing in Japan with the tsunami wasn't.

No. It was most assuredly incompetence.

The Japanese reactors were built in the 1970s. It has not been politically viable to build new ones since then.

Added to which, nuclear power looks expensive (because a single plant is far more expensive than a single natural gas plant, say, nevermind that it produces fifty times as much power). Japanese politicians being politicians, they've cut back on maintenance and inspection repeatedly (because "nothing has gone wrong yet, therefore nothing can go wrong ever" is an attitude which trancends all borders - the implicit addendum being "and if it does it's the next guy's problem").

Now, reactors have a finite lifespan, and 197x-201x is nearing the end of it. The maintenance should have been going up. Even so, normal operation never ran into any problems.

A tsunami is not normal operation. The Japanese are well aware of their own geography and they built their reactors to withstand earthquakes, tsunamis, typhoons, and whatnot. The plan for particularly severe events was simply to throttle down or outright shut down the reactor.
(this is rare by design, because one of the advantages of a nuclear reactor is the capacity for extremely reliable baseline output - and it is correspondingly expensive and involved to shut down and restart it)

So when an exceptional earthquake and tsunami reached an undermaintained reactor, things began going wrong. The prevailing attitude from regulators was that this would be minor and that any response (like throttling down) would look bad. Nobody wanted to tell their boss "something is going wrong (because of your policies)". And no boss wanted to tell the public "something is going wrong (because of our complacency)". Thus the proper response was delayed. Again - politicians gonna politics.

Everything that went wrong was human error from beginning to end. The designers and technicians who built the damn things would have been horrified by the laxity of latter-day operation.

(we might note, finally, that despite the woes of Fukushima, the nuclear reactor just up the road in Onagawa was built with more substantive protective measures and suffered literally no adverse consequences whatsoever; naturally, the politicians catered to the loud-mouthed frightened morons and shut it down anyway)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
14-07-2014, 09:16 AM
RE: What Happens when America can no longer feed the world?
And another thing:
The better estimates I've seen for deaths due to the Fukushima accident are ~130 excess deaths due to radiation exposure (ie, over the next 60 years or so). More people than that die in coal mines every year. Sometimes more people than that die in coal mines in a single day.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
14-07-2014, 07:56 PM
RE: What Happens when America can no longer feed the world?
Tidal power is the best option I can think of, while it has some environmental impact, its free kinetic energy while the moon continues to orbit.
Fuck the fish.

.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: