What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
171 Comments
- WiiNode, on 01/04/2009, -6/+112NIMBY kills.
If you think nuclear power is bad, do some research sometime on how bad coal power is. Coal power killed more people in London within a week than Chernobyl ever did. Coal destroyed an entire town when the underground mines started on fire. They're still burning today. Coal releases more radioactive material on a daily basis than any nuclear plant ever has. Coal has cost hundreds of thousands of lives in major mining accidents. Uranium cannot and will not explode or burn during mining.
Peak Uranium is a myth. We have far more than 60 years reserves. Waste is a self-created problem because the government doesn't want to develop reprocessing. (Supposedly because of national security issues, but uranium can be used to create a much simpler bomb than plutonium can.) Length of time and insurance are similarly self-created problems caused by post-Chernobyl and post-TMI fears. (TMI by the way worked like it was supposed to. The reactor shut down and nobody got hurt. There was never even a close call. Chernobyl was a case of intentional sabotage to a badly designed reactor.)
Here's the long and short of it: The more we rely on coal power (>50% of US power generation) the more people will DIE from coal-related incidents and pollution.
NIMBY kills. - inactive, on 01/04/2009, -8/+55"1. Length of time to come on stream"
It is lengthy because we allow liberal green obstructionists to make it so. Tort reform will solve that problem.
"2. Insurance"
Again, tort reform will vastly reduce risk of this amazingly safe power source.
"3. Waste"
Open Yucca Mountain
"4. Cost"
New reactor designs such as pebble bed reactors are amazingly cheap
"5. Peak Uranium"
Hogwash. There is 600 years worth of accessable Uranium. Then there is the moon and S type asteroids. The supply is limitless.
"6. Carbon Emissions"
You would think zero emissions would be popular among the climate change hysterics.
There. All 6 reasons effectively refuted. Now, let's make this planet glow with promise! - PopRule, on 01/04/2009, -7/+46Haven't ready the book, but the alternative to nuclear is coal. Which is to say that once you've exhausted all of the possible low-carbon energy sources, such as wind, solar, and geothermal, you'll still have a huge gap to fill in terms of demand. The choice will ultimately come down to coal or nuclear. As long as you know that that's the choice that has to be made, opposing nuclear means supporting coal.
- inactive, on 01/04/2009, -0/+35Coal fly ash is radioactive, yet there is no regulation from it going into the sky and into our lungs. Nuclear is the only non-renewable industry that completely disposes of their waste from start to finish
- mewoot10, on 01/05/2009, -3/+33this is why we don't have nuclear energy today, because of people who write false biased articles like this.
the benefits of nuclear energy far outweigh the negative impacts it may have. Do some research before writing articles like this.
Buried. - inactive, on 01/04/2009, -3/+32In Australia the amount of uranium to run the entire country would be the equivelent of a trainload per year.
Not to mention that we have around 23% of the worlds deposits.
Makes me wonder why we're not doing this already - inactive, on 01/05/2009, -4/+28this article really is 100% *****
vidgms, you sent over 100 shouts to your selection of about 1000 friends to get the article even noticed.
quit ruining digg, *****. - Stryder81, on 01/04/2009, -2/+261 Video to rebuttal that list -=)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usg7-xbQOcM - vidgms, on 01/04/2009, -4/+24I'm sorry but I just don't believe that coal is anywhere near as clean as nuclear power is. Although nuclear waste is a bitch to clean up, coal will clog our skies and lungs even though it is "clean".
- inactive, on 01/04/2009, -8/+26Nuclear power simply provides all the energy that a country needs, and does so with minimal impact on the environment. Imagine what would happen if we pumped billions of dollars of research into mitigating what little radioactive waste there is from the spent nuclear piles.
Any nation that uses nuclear power will NOT be subserviant to oil-producing nations and will be one step closer to self-sufficiency. - spritom, on 01/05/2009, -1/+19#5. Peak Uranium
Uranium is about as common as tin. Nevertheless, while not an immediate solution (a nuclear reactor isn't an immediate solution anyway), thorium, which is much more abundant than uranium could be used as fuel. - cslewisster, on 01/05/2009, -2/+19Buried, if spent nuclear rods are reprocessed (like they are in France) one family would use enough nuclear fuel to fill a coffee cup over their lifetime. This entire article is fallacious.
On a separate issue, why do asshat powerusers with 900 friends that give us ***** articles like this one. - JekJob, on 01/04/2009, -0/+16The demand exceeds the supply. i.e, more energy is needed at one moment than can possibly be created using those technologies. Not going to happen any time soon, though.
- fipi, on 01/05/2009, -3/+19The real reason: nuclear power has too much political resistance against it. That's what makes it costly, time-consuming to build, and a general pain in the arse to run and maintain. From a technological standpoint, it's ***** great - and most of these reasons on this list are crap. But it's lists like these that will cause us to converge on some other means of producing energy.
- WiiNode, on 01/04/2009, -3/+19Two words: Base Load
Wind, Solar, Thermal, and other alternative sources cannot supply the base load. You must have some sort of reliable power plants available to cover for periods when alternative sources are dumping insufficient power into the grid. - vidgms, on 01/04/2009, -1/+16Its to easy for people do do the easy thing. We humans like to make it hard on ourselves and wait until the last minute before our imminent doom before we try to fix things.
- MacroDaemon, on 01/05/2009, -2/+177. Neo-hippies.
- afruff23, on 01/04/2009, -3/+16The only point here I agree with is 2.
1. So? It can be a long term solution.
2. I agree here. If nuclear really is safe, then there should be no need for government subsidies to provide "insurance". I put "insurance" in quotes because if a nuclear disaster ever happened, the response would be worse than the government response to Katrina.
3. Waste has be stored for long periods of time. So? Relative to the use we get out of the nuclear fuel, it's a small burden.
4. You can't make a cost-based comparison when the government muddies up the true cost through subsidies. Remove all the alternative energy subsidies, get rid of Price-Anderson, and then maybe we can talk about cost.
5. This can be remedied through tons of ways. Breeder technology is the future. And we can reprocess waste for more energy.
6. Then factor the cost of carbon emissions into the price or pay some insurance company to protect you against the effects of carbon emissions. - zzzBrett, on 01/05/2009, -0/+12Response to #5:
"The world's present measured resources of uranium, economically recoverable at a price of 130 USD/kg, are enough to last for "at least a century" at current consumption rates."
-From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
-Source: http://www.nea.fr/html/general/press/2008/2008-02. ...
-Source: http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?sf1=i ...
...and with the potential for Nuclear Fusion in the near future:
"Assuming a fusion energy output equal to the current global output and that this does not increase in the future, then the known current lithium reserves would last 3000 years, lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years."
-From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
-Source: http://www.fusie-energie.nl/artikelen/ongena.pdf - tyrulz, on 01/05/2009, -3/+15THIS IS NOT TRUE...SMEAR TACTICS FROM PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SPREAD THEIR PROPAGANDA
- retroclarinet, on 01/05/2009, -0/+11As an employee at a Nuclear Power facility, I can attest that this list is screwed up at best, probably written by the son/daughter of a hippie who doesn't have the facts about how much Nuclear power actually costs to produce, the benefits of Nuclear power vs coal (even 'clean coal'). Modern Nuclear power is a safe and clean method of energy production, and many companies who run Nuclear power facilities are also spearheading programs for wind turbines, further hydroelectric studies, and the continuing development of solar solutions. Nuclear is a must, and it's a shame that the average person living in the US is oblivious of the facts.
- newmanium2001, on 01/05/2009, -1/+12Bury. What a factually inaccurate piece of ***** ...
- Swivelstick, on 01/04/2009, -0/+10Scarcity isn't the issue, the issue is control of the resource, local production is a reality in many places but our mindset is that only government or the corporate world have the ability to supply us with our energy needs.
- jstewdios, on 01/04/2009, -11/+21We live in a world of abundant resources. The alternative to nuclear is NOT coal as other users have mentioned.
Geothermal alone has the potential to vastly exceed human demand for energy, its simply of matter of putting in a little effort to utilize such energy effectively. Take a look at our sun, could you imagine a more abundant 'nuclear' power plant than that? Never before in history have we had such technology and opportunity to utilize so many different energy potentials. We just have to get off our ass and make it happen.
Between wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, biofuels, and the passion of the human mind, why do we continue to think we live in a world of scarcity? - disraeligears54, on 01/05/2009, -1/+10#7. Sarah Palin's pronunciation
- Atario, on 01/04/2009, -6/+15How the hell do you "exhaust" wind, solar, and geothermal??
- 0260, on 01/05/2009, -0/+9Buried for inaccurate
- Target91, on 01/05/2009, -0/+9Doesn't a Breeder Reactor recycle all the waste it produces?
Also we will need a combination of Wind,Solar,Nuclear, and Geothermal to replace fossil fuels, and create things with energy efficiency in mind. - kevlar21, on 01/04/2009, -0/+8That doesn't mean it can't save us.
- steelclash84, on 01/05/2009, -0/+8Coal produces a more radioactive waste than nuclear reactors do.
- Gr00ver, on 01/05/2009, -2/+10Lies and propaganda.
- crossmr, on 01/05/2009, -0/+8You know why nuclear isn't practical? because too many people won't shut up about it. We need some kind of power generation that runs on pink ponies and teddy bears before we could all live in peace.
- Chestnutridge, on 01/05/2009, -0/+7Windmills only make power when the wind blows (between certain speeds) and only some places are practical for the windmills. The Southeast, for instance, has very few workable sites. And don't think local groups don't oppose them too)
- freefallgrue, on 01/05/2009, -2/+9FACT: Well over 90% of nuclear "waste" can be recycled and used again.
Solar and wind are not suitable for base grid generation, they can only help with peak load. The cleanest form of non-geographically dependent (e.g., geothermal, hydroelectric) is… surprise! Nuclear!
Anyone who is opposed to nuclear power is either stupid, or uneducated. - PhillAholic, on 01/05/2009, -0/+7Not to mention that just about all the points made in the article have to do with how Nuclear Energy is regulated by the government. The cost and time for one thing is heavily dependent on the how much regulation that surrounds Nuclear Energy that isn't present around alternative forms of production.
- sanman, on 01/05/2009, -2/+9Uhhhh....
THORIUM
ever heard of it?
Burns up actinides/waste
60 times more abundant in Earth's crust than Uranium
nuff said. - elmuerte17, on 01/05/2009, -0/+6what about thorium?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle - alricsca, on 01/05/2009, -0/+6LOL, peak uranium is a joke. Breeder reactors can produce more fuel from Uranium tailings until virtually every atom is used. Even then you could switch to Thorium based reactors. This is true of most all the super heavy elements which only need a neutron source to activate them. We only use a few isotopes of uranium which are easy to use for fuel now but that would hardly be the case if we went fully into its use.
As far as waste goes, there is more radioactive risks in the coal ash that just got released than in 99% of all nuclear waste not to mention the many other poisons in that material. The remaining 1% mostly consist of used fuel rods which can be reused in breeder cores and thus recycled. What is left is the old cores which will not need to be replaced for decades. Even this is overstated, because in a hundred years the risk is substantially reduced even for the highest level waste of this type.
The initial carbon cost to get the fuels is only an issue if we use fossil fueled devices to get it. We could use electric or other renewable fuels to do this.
Some reactor designs cannot melt down and with a double shelled cores radiation release is highly unlikely. As far as terrorist, why bother it is easier to create a dirty bomb with any number of materials that are readily available for use in medicine.
The rest are government and regulatory issues. - Chestnutridge, on 01/05/2009, -4/+10delqueue--- I don't think it is helpful to claim that the problem is "liberal green obstructionists" when in reality the conservative Western and Southern U.S. states have been just as anti-nuclear when it comes to having it in their backyards as the liberal east. Look at how every conservative politician in Nevada has lined up against Yucca Mountain. You can have all the "tort reform" you want but if all the people in a town are against the new power plant, the courts are going to hear it.
- Barackalypse, on 01/05/2009, -0/+6LOL at #6, carbon emissions. Everything we mass produce for use in power generation is going to have greenhouse gas emmisions when considering the harvesting and processing of the raw materials it needs Wind turbines use copper and sit on metal towers, guess what, the machines that mine the copper and the iron run on diesel (or diesel electric).
- WiiNode, on 01/05/2009, -1/+7Geothermal has a massive *potential*, but we are unable to tap that potential except for a few key places in the world. I know a guy who does Geothermal work, and they use it for home heating rather than power generation. By pumping cold water about 200 feet under the ground, more energy can be extracted from the even temperatures at that depth than is put into the pumping. However, that's a long way from the gigawatts of electricity needed to power the local grid.
Research is on-going, but geothermal is not a viable alternative across the board right now. If you live in Iceland, great! If not, not so much. - Samurai77, on 01/05/2009, -1/+7Buried for being a ***** article.
Just ask the French how they reuse the spent uranium rod and you will see some amazing stuff. - mewoot10, on 01/05/2009, -0/+6shutup
- PopRule, on 01/04/2009, -1/+7We need to pursue all renewable sources with vigor. But their potential is still limited, unless you bank on some type of radical breakthrough. That's a risky bet considering that our energy demand will double over the next 40 years. Not only do we have to replace about 90% of our current dirty (fossil fuel) sources, we have to come up with twice that much again. At some point, you'll reach the physical limit of solar, wind, and geothermal. Yes, there's plenty of sunlight and geothermal energy; the problem is harnessing it and converting it to electricity. That's where the bottleneck is. So you then have to make the choice: more nuclear or more coal. Let's be realistic. Idealism has not gotten the Bush admin too far. Time to return to pragmatic policies. Choose coal or nuclear.
- xptoast, on 01/05/2009, -1/+6Way to get rid of the waste:
Make a railgun outback that shoots the canisters of waste into space somewhere. Probably the sun or something like that. Just plug in the railgun to the Nuclear Plant. Sure your burning energy but you got to do it somehow. - zacharytelschow, on 01/05/2009, -0/+5"Between wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, biofuels, and the passion of the human mind, why do we continue to think we live in a world of scarcity?"
All those energy sources you mentioned can be used today, right now. I'll be dollars to dimes you're not using any of them as your primary source of power, and you aren't using a combination for all of your electricity. Why? The same reason as the rest of us. Cost. You wanna pay $1 a kilowatt/hour for your power, go ahead and do it. Unless there's a radical breakthrough, as mentioned above, these power sources won't be utilized until fossil fuels run low and clean energy becomes cost competitive. - murrdpirate, on 01/05/2009, -0/+5Isn't that what PopRule is saying?
But yeah, I agree with you both. It is not feasible for us to run completely off of renewable energy any time soon. Nuclear power can at least allow us to stop using coal while we develop renewable energy, and someday it may even be the best choice. - h0ser, on 01/04/2009, -2/+7could also work on energy efficiency. I'm sure we are wasting a lot of power doing meaningless things in the world. If the power consumption of the world was more efficient then the demand for power would drop dramatically and we wouldn't have a problem filling the holes.
- inactive, on 01/04/2009, -5/+10Well, first things first. Eventually, the nation's infrastructure can be set up to run everything off of electricity which is generated from nuclear, solar, wind, hydrodynamic, geothermal, etc. sources of energy. This includes grills and cars.
And natural gas, petroleum-based products, and other traditional sources of energy can be used as a backup. - Tynan, on 01/05/2009, -0/+5Complete *****.
1. Length of time to come on stream - mostly bureaucratic BS. Cut the red tape and this drops to just a few years.
2. Insurance - Bureaucracy, same as above
3. Waste - We can deal. We're better at producing less of this and dealing with it better than ever before.
4. Cost - How much did the Iraq oil war cost again?
5. Peak Uranium - simply *****. We have thousands of years of uranium, the fuel consumption is tiny. e=mc^2 is powerful.
6. Carbon emissions - They exist, and they're way way way lower than fossil fuel sources. -
Show 51 - 100 of 178 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is