Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 75 of 75
  1. #71
    Digital_Eon's Avatar
    Digital_Eon is offline Super Moderator Community Builder
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Kya~nada
    Posts
    17,429

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    On the other hand, I'd argue that I'm actually doing the man a favour by telling him to shut up before he makes an even greater fool out of himself.
    You are. What kind of a place has ST become where this kind of thing is considered trolling now? This is a debate thread, and Saizou is pointing that out in the context of his intelligent arguments, not making them his only points. Seriously, if you can't tolerate that, get a backbone; many of us have seen real trolls and flamers even on this forum and this is pretty far from it.

    Quote Originally Posted by pulp_chicken
    ST should be a friendly place where no one gets offended by neither mods nor members.
    If you don't want debate threads, then stay out of them, because the rest of us clearly enjoy them. People are going to get offended in them simply because others disagree. We make the decision to risk that by posting in them, or reading them.

    Anyway, to add my less-than-two-cents to the debate, I support the use of nuclear power until a safer, cheaper, reusable energy source is found/utilized. To me, it seems that a few catastrophes have stuck in the minds of the public, which scares them away. They fail to notice the many instances where nuclear power is used around the world TODAY (I think France gets something like 80% of their power from nuclear plants... don't quote me on that, though. I know France does have 'em, though), without the huge accidents. It's like when a big plane crash happens and everyone's scared of flying, even when flying is still safe AND more people die on the roads. But then, lots of people seem to support biofuels without really knowing their consequences, so...
    ~Digital_Eon~




  2. #72
    Chaoswind is offline Senior Member Long Time Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Under a rock, behind a tree, just outside the road, moving at low speed.
    Posts
    946

    Default

    That is exactly the problem Digi, most of the people is so scared of what happened in Chernobyl, that they disregard our only true option in a heartbeat, is sad so sad...

    The only thing we need to have are safety standards for all the Nuclear powerplants in the world and tight security and there is almost nothing to lose, there are several ways of dealt with the Nuclear waste, but for some reason everyone things they are going to be dropped in rivers and lakes >_>

    And again Biodisel and Etanol SUCK for all the reasons stated above, our only options are Solar and Nuclear...

    If all the families get enough Solar Panels to produce at least 15% of the energy they consume, there wouldn't be a huge need for a lot of Nuclear power plants.

    About the Cars >_>, the only 2 options are to use Fuel Cells hybrids or Electric cars (with are more efficient), or methane...
    DEAD TO THE RETARDS!!!
    DEAD TO THE FANBOYS!!!
    DEAD TO THE WERESHEEP!!!

  3. #73
    StealDragon's Avatar
    StealDragon is offline Super Moderator Community Builder
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NCC-1701
    Posts
    13,402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    On the other hand, I'd argue that I'm actually doing the man a favour by telling him to shut up before he makes an even greater fool out of himself.
    I think one warning is enough, if he wants to continue posting horribly inaccurate or irrelevant information/opinions then thats his prerogative. You don't have to entertain it with a response.
    Quote Originally Posted by Digital_Eon View Post
    You are. What kind of a place has ST become where this kind of thing is considered trolling now? This is a debate thread, and Saizou is pointing that out in the context of his intelligent arguments, not making them his only points. Seriously, if you can't tolerate that, get a backbone; many of us have seen real trolls and flamers even on this forum and this is pretty far from it.
    I agree, this is not near the scale of what used to go down here, but that time has come and gone (thankfully). The word's being used incorrectly, Pulp is accusing Saizou of trolling because of his harsh tone and not so subtle insults, when actually its EightBall (who in my opinion actually is trolling), because hes posting and defending some seriously silly stuff as if there was a possible way to convince even a moderately interested and informed observer that his conclusions are correct.

    ... it kinda hit me when he bought up Yellowstone in Wyoming when I specifically said Northern Minnesota. No one who knows what they're talking about will ever draw a line between those two places.

    If you don't want debate threads, then stay out of them, because the rest of us clearly enjoy them. People are going to get offended in them simply because others disagree. We make the decision to risk that by posting in them, or reading them.
    She has thin skin and rightly so. No biggie, shes new and has yet to become acclimated to our forum's style.

    =]


    I'd like to die with the songs I love stuck in my head. I hope to make the most of these hollow bones we become.
    I raise a toast to the the souls that sang all along. I've been gathering friends to just to make some sounds,
    before the ship goes down, I've been making amends by making the rounds before the whole world ends


    [Chit Chat Specific Forum Rules] // Last Update - Friday March 13, 2009

  4. #74
    barny21 is offline Senior Member Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Pasay, Ph
    Posts
    164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    Jesus, dude. Stop talking if you don't know shit about shit. We know exactly where earthquakes can occur and where they can't. Steal already posted a map of the seismic activity in the US that shows there are areas where earthquakes won't occur.
    Correction:

    We know [delete]exactly[/delete] where earthquakes probably can occur and where they probably can't. Steal already posted a map of the seismic activity in the US that shows there are areas where earthquakes probably won't occur.

    From that images website: Earthquake Probability Map
    That image that steal posted displays the counties where maximum values of horizontal ground acceleration caused by seismic shaking that, with a 90% probability, are not likely to be exceeded in 50 years.
    There is no guarantee that no earthquake will occur in those light red areas. This is only probability. And only accurate up to 90% in 50 years. We need a thousand.

    If we can really predict earthquakes. Tsunamis wont be a worry. But a tsunami a few years back took thousands of lives. Earthquake. Prediction.


    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    And that's exactly why reprocessing is critical. With large-scale repocessing we can get our uranium to last for hundreds of years, which should be plenty of time to develop fusion power.
    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    Yeah, except that the current reserves are expected to last for about 85 years, according to IAEA. On the other hand the implementation of fast reactor technology would mean that the fuel would last for about 2500 years, so I don't think we have any worries in that department
    There seems to security issues attached with reprocessing. Reprocessing has been around since 1949. Discontinued by two presidents, Ford and Carter due to weapon grade fuel proliferation. How will you deal with this when a bum crapped at the supposedly Homeland security agency.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    In fact you can. Transuranic waste can be transmuted into other elements with shorter half-lives.
    True. But not all transuranic waste can be transmuted. If this were possible, deep final repositories would not be give thought about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    Geology and particle physics are two distinct fields of science.
    I'm glad you were educated. But that's not my intent. You said that you trust construction technology today. If you read the article, those guys at fermilab couldn't even build a proper mount to the magnets at the LHC which caused it to fail and cause damage to the structure. What's more worrying is that place was a controlled environment. The structure needed for repositories must be built to resist unpredictable (yet) geological activity.

    Quote Originally Posted by adonai View Post
    Why would future generations have to deal with something that they won't have to come into contact with and would have already decayed significantly by the time they're around?
    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    Yes, obviously future generations will inevitably poke around in sealed vaults many miles beneath the earth. How could I have missed this fact?
    We're dealing with global warming now. They never thought of it when they oil was discovered. Also, some byproducts of the decay would be weapon grade nuclear fuel. Now that's one reason why the future generations would have to deal with.


    Quote Originally Posted by adonai View Post
    Above ground storage wouldn't be a problem either, even neglecting containment measures, what's harmful to humans is not the same as what's harmful to other lifeforms. Not to mention other methods such as placing the waste at a subduction zone and letting it get pushed under the crust.
    I don't what's the point. Are you saying that's its okay for you for humans to be extinct and for other species to survive?

    If containment measures can be neglected. What do you say about these plans for sealing the chernobyl site?

    The NSC design is an arch shaped steel structure with an internal height of 92.5 meters (303.5 ft), a 12 meter (39.4 ft) distance between the centers of the upper and lower arch chords. The internal span of the arch is to be 245 meters (803.8 ft), and the external span is to be 270 meters (885.8 ft). The dimensions of the arch were determined based upon the need to operate equipment inside the new shelter and decommission the existing shelter. The overall length of the structure is 150 meters (492.1 ft) consisting of 13 arches assembled 12.5 meters (41 ft) apart to form 12 bays. The ends of the structure will be sealed by vertical walls assembled around, but not supported by, the existing structures of the reactor building.
    Quote Originally Posted by adonai View Post
    The great thing about nuclear energy in the first place is the relatively great amount of energy produced by a relatively small mass, it's far more efficient than burning corn sugar. No one is suggesting that it's going to last forever, but it's still a much idea than corn ethanol.
    I cannot agree more about the efficiency. But how will you deal with the waste. ITS THE WASTE that's the problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaoswind View Post
    Oh GOD Nuclear waste is going to make my balls disappear and will make me grow a third eye, is not like the fucking core of our planet is a HUGE Nuclear powerplant (speculation)
    Not just your balls dude. Consider extinction. Somebody's reading too much x-men.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    Apparently you also don't have a clue about how capitalism works. The fact is that as energy prices continue to rise, the profits from biofuel will also follow suit. This means that it will be more profitable to produce biofuel than it will be to produce food. Therefore, it is obvious that land that could be used for food production will instead be devoted to biofuel, especially in the third world where the cost of labour is far cheaper than in the west.

    This naturally leads to a quite perverse situation where the farmland of the third world will be exploited to produce biofuel, while the continuing growth of population will drive up the demand for food. However, because the population of the third world doesn't have any real purchasing power, the situation will persist, inevitably leading to food shortages, and an overall reduction in the standard of living. Naturally civil unrest will follow, and when the dissatisfaction grows strong enough the nationalization of farmland is inevitable to prevent mass starvation, and popular governments will rise to enact these reforms.

    In other words, economic realities make large scale use of biofuel just as unsustainable as dependance on oil. I don't expect that you'd understand this, but I can always hope that you got at least part of my argument.
    That's also one of the problems, Capitalism, Social System. I just hope that humanity will achieve communism in the future. If you wanna talk about economy, look at how much the world had been spending on one failed chernobyl, their planning to build another shelter on top on what's existing now for nearly a billion dollars. Not to include the first shelter and the loss of life and continuing maintenance. How sure are we that these power plants won't fail another time? How capable are we in defending these nuke powerplants from being a target of another 9-11? Big returns, big risks. Security has a cost too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    There isn't a volcano in the world that would cause heavy damage to structures at that distance.
    You don't exactly need a volcano to cause an earthquake.




    Quote Originally Posted by Digital_Eon View Post
    People are going to get offended in them simply because others disagree. We make the decision to risk that by posting in them, or reading them.
    Well said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Digital_Eon View Post
    To me, it seems that a few catastrophes have stuck in the minds of the public, which scares them away. They fail to notice the many instances where nuclear power is used around the world TODAY (I think France gets something like 80% of their power from nuclear plants... don't quote me on that, though. I know France does have 'em, though), without the huge accidents. It's like when a big plane crash happens and everyone's scared of flying, even when flying is still safe AND more people die on the roads. But then, lots of people seem to support biofuels without really knowing their consequences, so...
    Yes, that seems to be the case. But there is a reason why people are worried. The damage caused by a failed nuke reactor is much different from a plane or a cruise sinking, not even 9-11 would equal it. When a plane crashes, a few hundred or so people die, the plane burns, some pollution, after it is extinguised, the deed's done. When a nuke reactor fails, you've gotta deal with the fallout, containing the reactor for a hundred years, monitor it for a hundred years.
    Tagalog: "Bababa ba?"
    English: "Are you going down?"

  5. #75
    cpr's Avatar
    cpr
    cpr is offline Super Moderator Community Builder
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,952

    Default

    I think for everyone's sake this argument has gone on long enough.

    locking.

 

 
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
vBulletin Skin by: ForumThemes.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79