On Sep 15, 10:47*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
BradGuth wrote



Rod Speed wrote
BradGuth wrote
Rod Speed wrote
BradGuth wrote
Rod Speed wrote
BradGuth wrote
Immortalist wrote
Proponents of nuclear energy contend that nuclear power is a
sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and
increases energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign
oil. Proponents also emphasize that the risks of storing waste
are small and can be further reduced by using the latest
technology in newer reactors and that the operational safety
record in the Western world is excellent when compared to the
other major types of power plants. Critics believe that nuclear
power is a potentially dangerous energy source, with decreasing
proportion of nuclear energy in production, and dispute whether
the risks can be reduced through new technology.
Proponents advance the notion that nuclear power produces
virtually no air pollution, in contrast to the chief viable
alternative of fossil fuel combustion.
Proponents also point out that nuclear power is the only viable
course to achieve energy independence for most Western
countries. Critics point to the issue of storing radioactive
waste, the
history of and continuing potential for radioactive
contamination
by accident or sabotage, the continuing possibility of nuclear
proliferation, and the disadvantages of centralized electricity
production.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate
The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The
waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to
be carefully looked after for several thousand years (10'000
years according to United States Environmental Protection
Agency standards). High risks: Despite a generally high
security standard, accidents
can still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant
with 100% security. A small probability of failure will always
last. The consequences of an accident would be absolutely
devastating both for human being as for the nature (see here ,
here or here ). The more nuclear power plants (and nuclear
waste storage shelters) are built, the higher is the
probability of a disastrous failure somewhere in the world.
Nuclear power plants as well as nuclear waste could be
preferred targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy
plant in the
world could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in Yew York.
Such a terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the
whole world. During the operation of nuclear power plants,
radioactive waste is produced, which in turn can be used for
the production of nuclear weapons. In addition, the same
know-how
used to design nuclear power plants can to a certain extent be
used to build nuclear weapons (nuclear proliferation).
The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium. Uranium is a
scarce resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the
next 30 to 60 years depending on the actual demand.
The time frame needed for formalities, planning and building
of a
new nuclear power generation plant is in the range of 20 to 30
years in the western democracies. In other words: It is an
illusion to build new nuclear power plants in a short time.
http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-co...-and-sustainab...
Thorium is perfectly fine and dandy. So why not use it?
Of course geothermal energy is even better.
Nope, its main problem is that it mostly isnt where the energy
will be used.
In fact almost any form of energy other than derived from coal
or other hydrocarbons
is better for the short and long-term. Never the less, in most
applications uranium sucks.
Wrong again. It works fine in France and Japan.
You really don't seem to care about humanity,
Humanity is doing fine in all but the dregs of the third world
where nukes and geothermal are completely irrelevant while ever
they keep having FAR more kids than their circumstances can
possibly support.
or that of our badly failing environment, do you.
Taint failing at all. And if you believe that CO2 levels are
the problem, nukes fix that much more effectively than
geothermal does and they get rid of the **** so many coal
fired power stations pump into the environment as well.
I suppose $1/kwhr
That is a bare faced lie. Neither france or japan spend
anything like that for their electricity from nukes.
suits your public funded mindset perfectly fine and dandy.
Anything uranium can do, thorium can do ten fold better,
Wrong with ready to go nukes that have been working fine for
decades now.
and geothermal at another ten fold better yet.
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys/lies.
This topic of "Whats Wrong With NUCLEAR Power"
is not a topic of 'Whats Right With NUCLEAR Power'.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead
flushed where it belongs

I consider the all-inclusive uranium powered reactor as
birth-to-grave unacceptable,

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
irrelevant.

whereas thorium being a failsafe alternative that's also much
cheaper

Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate that claim.

and a whole lot cleaner, not to mention nuclear weapons
proliferation proof

Irrelevant in countrys that already have nukes.

(as in how many global trillions in savings is that worth?)

Completely worthless with countrys that already have nukes.

reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead
flushed where it belongs
You should start a topic "Whats Right With NUCLEAR Power",

You should go and **** yourself, again.

reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

So, you admit that you're not smart enough to start and manage a
newsgroup topic of:
"Whats Right With NUCLEAR Power"

Figures, doesn't it.

~ BG