Just keep your cousin "PotatoPeelerBot" away from me...>> ^graterbot:

I am ready to serve. >> ^oritteropo:
I'm sure we could've coaxed @graterbot out of retirement, even if @siftbot wasn't radiation hardened.
>> ^Issykitty:
Stay away, @siftbot!

I am ready to serve. >> ^oritteropo:

I'm sure we could've coaxed @graterbot out of retirement, even if @siftbot wasn't radiation hardened.
>> ^Issykitty:

Stay away, @siftbot!

I'm sure we could've coaxed @graterbot out of retirement, even if @siftbot wasn't radiation hardened.
>> ^Issykitty:

Stay away, @siftbot!

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
At any rate, don't take my word for it, there is lots of data out there to look over.


No there isn't because we haven't had enough reactors for a long period of time to get a large enough date sample. The only reason Chernoble wasn't as bad as it could be here was because it wasn't placed in Downtown LA. Look I get it, it's cleaner than coal...it's not safe, don't try to make it sound safe. Japan proved it's not safe...lets put a few in tornado alley and see what happens...or maybe some on the San Andreas Fault.
Whatever data that's out there it's not a big enough sample size...it's like asking 100 people to represent that nations opinions. No Nuclear Power until we at least kill half the population.

I don't think you realize how much power nuclear provides. At over 61,032 MW, and nearly 450 plants, there is a ton of data on how safe and clean they are. Japan proved that even in a case of a nuclear meltdown from a Tsunami that killed over 10k people, 3 explosions, and flooding...and only ONE person died (from a heart attack), that nuclear reactors are one of the great engineering examples in the world today. Not only that, but that reactor is over 40 years old, a gen 1 reactor. Many modern reactors not longer use regular water, or water at all as a coolant, so are much much safer. But even then, more people have died falling off roof tops installing solar panels than even in Fukushima. I think you have made up your mind already, but I challenge you to examine your opinion and see if it hasn't been formed by fear factor media hype instead of facts and evidence. I know I had similar to your opinion not to long ago. The evidence is pretty clear, nuclear power has the best track record of any power source in the history of man in terms of production and safety. There are still some bad reactors out there, but take that into consideration, there are 1000 different ways to do nuclear energy, just because one or 2 reactors designs are bad doesn't make the whole lot bad. That is like saying since Ford made a bad car once, not only are all Fords bad, but all cars, it is a reaction that is based more in emotion than evidence, and the evidence is that pound for pound, fission is the safest and cleanest energy around, even in spite of running on 50 year old tech ( you should see the stuff we have now). Think of how different cars and planes have gotten in 50 years, how much safer, how much more reliable!?


I'll be honest...I don't give a shit I just want you to shut up.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
At any rate, don't take my word for it, there is lots of data out there to look over.


No there isn't because we haven't had enough reactors for a long period of time to get a large enough date sample. The only reason Chernoble wasn't as bad as it could be here was because it wasn't placed in Downtown LA. Look I get it, it's cleaner than coal...it's not safe, don't try to make it sound safe. Japan proved it's not safe...lets put a few in tornado alley and see what happens...or maybe some on the San Andreas Fault.
Whatever data that's out there it's not a big enough sample size...it's like asking 100 people to represent that nations opinions. No Nuclear Power until we at least kill half the population.


I don't think you realize how much power nuclear provides. At over 61,032 MW, and nearly 450 plants, there is a ton of data on how safe and clean they are. Japan proved that even in a case of a nuclear meltdown from a Tsunami that killed over 10k people, 3 explosions, and flooding...and only ONE person died (from a heart attack), that nuclear reactors are one of the great engineering examples in the world today. Not only that, but that reactor is over 40 years old, a gen 1 reactor. Many modern reactors not longer use regular water, or water at all as a coolant, so are much much safer. But even then, more people have died falling off roof tops installing solar panels than even in Fukushima. I think you have made up your mind already, but I challenge you to examine your opinion and see if it hasn't been formed by fear factor media hype instead of facts and evidence. I know I had similar to your opinion not to long ago. The evidence is pretty clear, nuclear power has the best track record of any power source in the history of man in terms of production and safety. There are still some bad reactors out there, but take that into consideration, there are 1000 different ways to do nuclear energy, just because one or 2 reactors designs are bad doesn't make the whole lot bad. That is like saying since Ford made a bad car once, not only are all Fords bad, but all cars, it is a reaction that is based more in emotion than evidence, and the evidence is that pound for pound, fission is the safest and cleanest energy around, even in spite of running on 50 year old tech ( you should see the stuff we have now). Think of how different cars and planes have gotten in 50 years, how much safer, how much more reliable!?

"Dresden Generating Station is the first privately financed nuclear power plant built in the United States. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Research. It works, bitches.

>> ^Ariane:

Did Fukushima not teach you shills for the nuclear industry anything? Nuclear energy is far from clean or cheap. The cost of a nuclear power plant exceeds the cost of electricity it will produce which is why there has never been a privately financed nuclear plant EVER!

>> ^Ariane:

Did Fukushima not teach you shills for the nuclear industry anything? Nuclear energy is far from clean or cheap. The cost of a nuclear power plant exceeds the cost of electricity it will produce which is why there has never been a privately financed nuclear plant EVER!


Because fossil fuel generation has always been relatively cheap up till now...

This clinging to the whole 'nuclear bad' schtick with little evidence to back it up is just getting old. Anyone who knows anything about solar cell production knows that it not only has many harmful chemicals at the manufacturing end but the panels themselves are dangerous at their end of lifetime if not properly disposed of.

Can nuclear power be dangerous? Of course. Is it a viable alternative for base grid load if we want to eliminate fossil fuels? Currently, it's the only alternative. Renewables are no where close to ready to take over base load and fusion just hasn't happened yet. Pick your poison, but think quick...

http://www.renewableenergygeek.ca/solar-power/solar-panels-health-warning-hazzard/

>> ^Ariane:

Did Fukushima not teach you shills for the nuclear industry anything? Nuclear energy is far from clean or cheap. The cost of a nuclear power plant exceeds the cost of electricity it will produce which is why there has never been a privately financed nuclear plant EVER!


I know what you're trying to say, but when your opening gambit is calling people nuclear industry shills, you sound like a lunatic. I mean, i think it's fair to say that only a lunatic would think there are not just one but multiple nuclear shills dedicated to promoting nuclear power on the sift.

Renewable so far isn't enough, and the cost of nuclear power mostly comes from handling the fuel and waste it seems. So with nuclear we have to spend a lot of money (and some fossil fuels) to handle the materials. On the other hand with fossil fuels, we spend less but hurt the environment more. But then we need to consider how long we can go on burying or sinking radioactive material and/or rendering huge areas of our limited planet uninhabitable, we need another solution which is almost certainly fusion.

Fusion is an engineering problem right now. Perhaps a technology/cost problem especially during a recession. Anyone with any money left to put into hopeful energy tech has it in the form of oil (because that's going nowhere and we damn well need it) and why would they promote that?

>> ^Ariane:

Did Fukushima not teach you shills for the nuclear industry anything? Nuclear energy is far from clean or cheap. The cost of a nuclear power plant exceeds the cost of electricity it will produce which is why there has never been a privately financed nuclear plant EVER!


Yes, because wind and solar are ever so profitable aren't they. If you had a solar farm in Fukushima's place producing the same amount of power you'd have heavy metals seeping into the water supply across half of Japan. That doesn't even mention the fact that half of Japan, would have been permanently covered by those solar panels just to match the output of the Fukushima plant.

How many deaths are attributable to Fukushima by the way? Zero.

If you want to talk about long term health effects, please don't forget to add up the damage from burning thousands of tonnes of coal and dumping the smoke straight out into the air 24 hours a day 7 days a week. I know which poison I'd pick every single time.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Nebosuke:
Disagree. No vote. Fossil fuels need to be abandoned before nuclear. Nothing generates more power than a nuclear plant.

Nor does anything produce energy as cleanly as nuclear. It's shame the greens are so scared of the most promising clean energy alternative we currently have just waiting to be used.


So it's not just me...

I'd like to like environmental politics, but their approach to nuclear power is just so ignorant. Nuclear power is by far the best source we have for being clean, safe and effective. Yes, it has problems, but much fewer than any other source. It's cleaner than fossil fuel. Never mind the more obvious pollutants, nuclear plants release less radiation than coal plants.

Meanwhile, renewable sources like the wind farms that this video is pushing produce sod all. All the solar panels in Germany (one of the most solar-powered countries around) produce the same amount of power as Fukushima did, and that's only in the sort of ideal weather conditions that exist for a matter of hours a year.

As horrible as the Fukushima disaster was, this was about the worse case scenario. One of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded, striking near an old power plant and what happened? Zero deaths from radiation, with long term effects yet to be seen of course. Do we need land for agriculture? Yes, although it's debatable just how much as total food production isn't the problem. We also need electricity. We also need to cut pollution. If we invested in nuclear power, thorium in particular, we could achieve all these even before fusion is perfected. Also, we wouldn't need to have 40 year old power plants in earthquake regions if counter-productive environmentalists didn't try so hard to wreak the environment.

Care about the environment? Then support nuclear power!

I want a dyson sphere. Get some people on that, could ya?
>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^gwiz665:
Nuclear is not perfect, but it's the best we have right now. Coal and Oil are much worse. Wind, Solar and Geothermal are better, but not nearly the same scale as Nuclear.

There are several issues with nuclear and Chernobyl/Fukushima style disasters are frankly the least of them.
Leaving aside the obviously thorny issue of waste management, the other issue arises when you amortise the cost over the total lifetime of the nuclear plant. It's just not that cheap in terms of energy or money to build, run and then decommission.
As for renewable energy, it's nowhere close to providing the energy levels we need yet. Also there are other environmental issues with some renewable energy generation methods as well. Hydro requires large dams (concrete is an eco-nightmare) and can destroy habitats. Geothermal can affect the landscape (subsidence and sapping geysers are two common effects). Lots of people complain about wind turbines as visually unappealing (personally I find the aesthetically pleasing). I'm not saying renewable technologies are bad, merely that there are still issues with them.
In real terms, fusion is where it's at.

>> ^gwiz665:

Nuclear is not perfect, but it's the best we have right now. Coal and Oil are much worse. Wind, Solar and Geothermal are better, but not nearly the same scale as Nuclear.


There are several issues with nuclear and Chernobyl/Fukushima style disasters are frankly the least of them.

Leaving aside the obviously thorny issue of waste management, the other issue arises when you amortise the cost over the total lifetime of the nuclear plant. It's just not that cheap in terms of energy or money to build, run and then decommission.

As for renewable energy, it's nowhere close to providing the energy levels we need yet. Also there are other environmental issues with some renewable energy generation methods as well. Hydro requires large dams (concrete is an eco-nightmare) and can destroy habitats. Geothermal can affect the landscape (subsidence and sapping geysers are two common effects). Lots of people complain about wind turbines as visually unappealing (personally I find the aesthetically pleasing). I'm not saying renewable technologies are bad, merely that there are still issues with them.

In real terms, fusion is where it's at.

Did Fukushima not teach you shills for the nuclear industry anything? Nuclear energy is far from clean or cheap. The cost of a nuclear power plant exceeds the cost of electricity it will produce which is why there has never been a privately financed nuclear plant EVER!

>> ^DarkenRahl:

Boil Japan?


Yeah. Seems a little too soon after Fukushima for that tag line.

Fukushima Toad!