(no subject)

[technoir]

So I had an interesting discussion last night with my grandfather at dinner concerning global warming and nuclear power. This led me to an see what other people think on the subject. Now there is very little doubt at this point that the data definitely points to global warming is occurring. Now there may be some debate as to whether it is caused by normal cycles of climate for the planet or is it caused by human industrial byproducts. Lets assume it is caused by humans. A sizable portion of the greenhouse gases in the world is from our power generation in coal burning power plants. This could easily be replaced by switching to nuclear power. Now there are other alternatives but each of them have large obstacles. Wind power, so far is of an efficiency that would make it impractical to have fields large enough to produce enough power for everyone who wants and needs it. Solar power despite having a better efficiency still is only producing during the day and it also not as great a power output as nuclear power. Hydroelectric makes a huge ecological impact by reshaping the water ways but it has good efficiency, but there are only so many rivers you can plug up. So Nuclear power is the only mature technology that could produce as efficiently or even more so than coal power that is available to us now. Which would you prefer, nuclear power or greenhouse gases? Now I tend to support Nuclear power. It is a technology that has not finished cooking perhaps but it is if done correctly it is actually quite safe. there is still debate as to whether 3mile island caused more than a couple of fatalities and it was about as bad as american nuclear power plans can get. Chernobyl was bad. Real bad. But it was also the result of an outdated design and a deliberate experiment in trying things outside the safety margins. There are some research lines to actually reduce the waste to almost nothing by extracting and reprocessing the usable isotopes and re burning them in the reactor. I am interested in what other people seem to think on this though.

Comments

[medicine-weasel.livejournal.com]

I noticed that you didn't mention geothermal. Its actually a very viable source of power and could be available in more places than you might think. Geothermal plants can also pretty much run themselves. There are some that just have a maintenance visit once a week or so.

I lived near Harrisburg, PA during the time of the 3 Mile Island accident. You could see the plant from my school, so I am more than a little biased. I have a lot of anectdotes about the after effects of that accident, but they are just that... anectdotes... no hard facts.

[technoir.livejournal.com]

The anecdotal evidence while something you dont want to ignore is also not something you want to base objective analysis on. How many times have we heard stories of everything from psychic phenomenon to alien abduction. You cant completely cast them asside but facts are the real measure.

That being said if you want at the bad you can look at Chernobyl. Even the name should have lead to people to think a little harder. Chernobyl is the Ukranian word for wormwood according to what I have read. If your up on biblical prophesy it is practically forshadowing. But with the literally thousands of deaths it is the real horrorshow of what happens when nuclear power goes wrong. Luckily it is the extreme and mainly due to some realy stupid people. Overall nuclear power has been very safe.

Geothermal while legitimate power source has not been developed well and is also harder to have in some places than others. Worth exsploring but it is not there right now.

The real question though is would you advocate nuclear over coal burning?

[medicine-weasel.livejournal.com]

I didn't want to post anything anectdotal because of the likelyhood of getting blasted. However, despite what the official reports say, vets in the area will tell you about the sky-rocketed cases of luekemia in felines (who are more susceptable) and regular doctors talk about increases in cancer in the region. Unfortunately, one person's facts are another person's playthings. Numbers can easily be manipulated and evedince can be hidden. In the end, I know the fear and terror of what I personally went through has put firmly against nuclear power. Peronally, I don't think "coal or nuclear" is a fair argument. As has been discussed here, there are many alternative sources of power. And we should pursue those alternatives. The primary reason are currently avoiding alternative forms of energy are fuel is politics. A few people with a LOT of money have that money invested in coal and oil and they want to make as much as they can for as long as they can. There is a long list of serious problems with nuclear power, such as, what do other countries do? The U.S. has forbidden some countries from using nuclear power. What should they do? In the end, we have been given numerous possibilities for providing cheap and even free energy that does not leave behind toxic pollutants (see both coal and nuclear). Why not use them?