FG Lurker wrote:Yeah, I am starting to see what pissed that other user off. I forget what his name was now, the guy that coligny hates so much. Edit: I think his ID was "Damn Name".
You're just starting to understand now?
Hot Topics | |
---|---|
FG Lurker wrote:Yeah, I am starting to see what pissed that other user off. I forget what his name was now, the guy that coligny hates so much. Edit: I think his ID was "Damn Name".
Samurai_Jerk wrote:You're just starting to understand now?
Yokohammer wrote:One of the unsolved problems with nuclear power, and a significant hidden cost, is how to dispose of the spent fuel. The pro-nuclear crowd hate to talk about this because there is no solution. Thus far, the human race has not come up with a clean, cost-effective way to dispose of spent nuclear fuel. There is no technology to neutralize it, at least on a sufficient scale, so the current interim stopgap measure is to store it somewhere, usually underground. And it really is nothing more than a stopgap measure. Nuclear power development has jumped the gun, with the assumption that "we're smart, we need nuclear power now, so we'll figure out how to dispose of our fatally radioactive trash someday." But so far nothing.
Spent fuel has to be stored in secure managed facilities that continue to cost money for ... well, indefinitely. It cannot simply be buried on a remote island somewhere and left alone. Someone could always come along and dig it up (think "dirty bombs"), or there could be a natural disaster of some sort that exposes the buried fuel, and there we have another nice radioactive plume enveloping the planet. This is not a small deal. It costs a fortune to keep nuclear refuse safe, and there is no end in sight. This is a very real part of the cost of nuclear energy. Not to mention the fact that each new spent nuclear fuel dump is another piece of the planet that is now useless for anything else.
The same goes for decommissioning nuclear plants. You can't just lock the door and walk away. Think decades and decades of cleanup, or more likely, another piece of the planet that can no longer be used for anything else with an ongoing and not-insiginificant price tag.
It's easy enough to come up with figures that "prove" how clean and cheap nuclear power is if you leave all of this, plus the potential cost of accidents, out of the equation.
chokonen888 wrote:I always wondered why this stuff isn't sent out to space. Hell, it could probably be used to power a ship to suicide it into an uninhabitable planet or something.
Coligny wrote:Ok, as usual, when argument runs short go for character assassinashiun:
Coligny wrote:On the other side... you worry for the trade balance... wtf !
Coligny wrote:Ok, as usual, when argument runs short go for character assassinashiun:
Coligny wrote:As for gates, like zuckerberg, sure, you can bow before their money... Look further than this... and it's not glorious. It's exactly like the 19th century philantropists businessmen. Make a lot of money shoddily on one side. When you are stuffed give away somewhere else what you can't even manage to spend by yourself.
chokonen888 wrote:I always wondered why this stuff isn't sent out to space. Hell, it could probably be used to power a ship to suicide it into an uninhabitable planet or something.
Samurai_Jerk wrote:I worry about what unnecessarily importing energy will do to the economy. Please understand that unlike you a lot of us have to work for a living.
fg lurker wrote:Really not sure what Gore has to do with Gates. You realize they are not the same person, right?
Coligny wrote:Given how (not) successfull Jaxa is with their rocket launches, I suggest that you stop immediately to give them even worse ideas than they can come up by themselves...
Coligny wrote:Now excuse me if I don't have to dig in a mine all day long.
Coligny wrote:But I sincerly doubt this fact can have any kind of value against my position on these matters...
Coligny wrote:And to be honest... Being questionned aboot what I do for the planet by someone advocating the restart of potentially dangerous nuclear powerplant is FUCKING PRICELESS
Coligny wrote:What you call "unnecessarily" is what I call safety precaution...
They are both pseudo philantropists, one got rich by killing other people's businesses, the other run a scam on top of the global warming crisis.
Now excuse me if I don't have to dig in a mine all day long. But I sincerly doubt this fact can have any kind of value against my position on these matters... And to be honest... Being questionned aboot what I do for the planet by someone advocating the restart of potentially dangerous nuclear powerplant is
FUCKING PRICELESS
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 75 guests