Nuclear energy going green
-
In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots... ...Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster
Patrick Moore, a founder of Green Peace[^]. Not the best article but a founder of GP advocating nuclear power is a significant move. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry!
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
-
In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots... ...Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster
Patrick Moore, a founder of Green Peace[^]. Not the best article but a founder of GP advocating nuclear power is a significant move. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry!
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
now, i know nothin about this field. but are we sure that hydroelectric is at capacity? can't we just dam a few more rivers?
-
Excellent news. Thanks for the link Paul. Nuclear energy has got a reputation I don't think it deserves; maybe this can help improve it's bad image.
I don't think it's the energy that has the reputation, rather the waste. I agree it's a cheap, reliable, safe (these days), way to generate energy, but I still don't think the waste question (i.e. what to do with it, long term) has been adequately addressed (or costed).
-
In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots... ...Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster
Patrick Moore, a founder of Green Peace[^]. Not the best article but a founder of GP advocating nuclear power is a significant move. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry!
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
All I can say is ABOUT FREAKING TIME!!! Pictures of the menu available at the drive-thru
-
James Lovelock (Gaia theory bloke) is pro nuclear power too, so are a quite a few of the founders of the green movement. The green movement started off as a scientific lobby. Nowadays, the directors of green NGO's are more likely to have a background in politics rather than scientific research and many push a political line that has more to do with their dislike of capitalism and need to get donations than their concern for the planet. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Nowadays, the directors of green NGO's are more likely to have a background in politics rather than scientific research and many push a political line that has more to do with their dislike of capitalism and need to get donations than their concern for the planet.
Too true of all grassroots movements eventually. Pictures of the menu available at the drive-thru
-
I don't think it's the energy that has the reputation, rather the waste. I agree it's a cheap, reliable, safe (these days), way to generate energy, but I still don't think the waste question (i.e. what to do with it, long term) has been adequately addressed (or costed).
Lovelock suggested (half seriously) that nuclear waste whould be disposed of by putting the cannisters in the amazon rainforest to keep the loggers out :) Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
now, i know nothin about this field. but are we sure that hydroelectric is at capacity? can't we just dam a few more rivers?
Hydroelectric can be very disruptive to communities, almost impossible to get a large hydro project off the ground in a densely populated democracy - far too many peoples homes end up under a lake. The Chinese can get away with it because they are autocrats, the Turks recently got away with it becuase they were flooding Kurdish land.. In general, its not really an option. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
Hydroelectric can be very disruptive to communities, almost impossible to get a large hydro project off the ground in a densely populated democracy - far too many peoples homes end up under a lake. The Chinese can get away with it because they are autocrats, the Turks recently got away with it becuase they were flooding Kurdish land.. In general, its not really an option. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
Dams are also notoriously bad for river systems and habitats. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry!
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
-
Hydroelectric can be very disruptive to communities, almost impossible to get a large hydro project off the ground in a densely populated democracy - far too many peoples homes end up under a lake. The Chinese can get away with it because they are autocrats, the Turks recently got away with it becuase they were flooding Kurdish land.. In general, its not really an option. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
Yeahhhhhhhhhhhh, i guess that would be a problem - putting folks' houses underwater... dang. Thanks for fillin me in :) ...Steve
-
Dams are also notoriously bad for river systems and habitats. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry!
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
A co-worker I knew used to work at hanford and in idaho on nuclear stuff. He said that the barrels are often left unaccounted for... And leaking... Freaked me out... I don't really plan on taking any trips to Idaho or Hanford...:~ Not that I think hydro is any better - i know nothin about this topic;P ...Steve
-
I don't think it's the energy that has the reputation, rather the waste. I agree it's a cheap, reliable, safe (these days), way to generate energy, but I still don't think the waste question (i.e. what to do with it, long term) has been adequately addressed (or costed).
Judd wrote:
I still don't think the waste question (i.e. what to do with it, long term) has been adequately addressed (or costed).
Probably true. Then again, we don't exactly do a good job of containing waste from power sources such as coal either. Popular prejudice makes it much easier to be heard complaining about nuclear waste, so perhaps there we have at least a shot at making something happen.
Now taking suggestions for the next release of CPhog...
-
A co-worker I knew used to work at hanford and in idaho on nuclear stuff. He said that the barrels are often left unaccounted for... And leaking... Freaked me out... I don't really plan on taking any trips to Idaho or Hanford...:~ Not that I think hydro is any better - i know nothin about this topic;P ...Steve
-
In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots... ...Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster
Patrick Moore, a founder of Green Peace[^]. Not the best article but a founder of GP advocating nuclear power is a significant move. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry!
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
-
A co-worker I knew used to work at hanford and in idaho on nuclear stuff. He said that the barrels are often left unaccounted for... And leaking... Freaked me out... I don't really plan on taking any trips to Idaho or Hanford...:~ Not that I think hydro is any better - i know nothin about this topic;P ...Steve
-
the main problem with Hanford is not the waste from Nuclear pwoer plants but the waste from making the first bombs. It still is a problem but so how it has been handled in the past.
Interestin. Well, i guess that lowers my amount of "freaked out"-edness... Thanks. After all, I'll probably have to go thru Idaho on my way to yellowstone someday. Of course, when I do, yellowstone will blow up in a monster sized firey volcano... But that's life... Whaddayagonnado...?
-
I don't think it's the energy that has the reputation, rather the waste. I agree it's a cheap, reliable, safe (these days), way to generate energy, but I still don't think the waste question (i.e. what to do with it, long term) has been adequately addressed (or costed).
There was a paragraph in the article that the waste can and should be recycled and turned into usable fuel leaving much less waste: Nuclear waste will be dangerous for thousands of years. Within 40 years, used fuel has less than one-thousandth of the radioactivity it had when it was removed from the reactor. And it is incorrect to call it waste, because 95 percent of the potential energy is still contained in the used fuel after the first cycle. Now that the United States has removed the ban on recycling used fuel, it will be possible to use that energy and to greatly reduce the amount of waste that needs treatment and disposal. Last month, Japan joined France, Britain and Russia in the nuclear-fuel-recycling business. The United States will not be far behind. John
-
In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots... ...Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster
Patrick Moore, a founder of Green Peace[^]. Not the best article but a founder of GP advocating nuclear power is a significant move. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry!
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
-
In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots... ...Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster
Patrick Moore, a founder of Green Peace[^]. Not the best article but a founder of GP advocating nuclear power is a significant move. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry!
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
But do we really need it? I was visiting a research site a few months ago that said a new solar array set in a 100 square mile of Nevada (USA) could generate enough power to supply the entire USA energy needs. Is there a need for nuclear (along with all its waste issues and military target issues) or is the problem a lack of puch into the abundant solar, wind and geothermal sources that seem to be pushed on the back burner? Personally, I would not want to live any where near a nuclear power plant, old style or new, regardless of the claimed saftey. Put out a contest for $1 billions to the most efficent and inexpensive solar, wind and geothermal generators, and we could probably solve the worlds engery woes almost over night.. Rocky <>< Latest Post: SQL2005 Server Managemnet Studio timeouts! Blog: www.RockyMoore.com/TheCoder/[^]
-
Nah. Let's shove it up there farther and smother the obnoxious twerp.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
But do we really need it? I was visiting a research site a few months ago that said a new solar array set in a 100 square mile of Nevada (USA) could generate enough power to supply the entire USA energy needs. Is there a need for nuclear (along with all its waste issues and military target issues) or is the problem a lack of puch into the abundant solar, wind and geothermal sources that seem to be pushed on the back burner? Personally, I would not want to live any where near a nuclear power plant, old style or new, regardless of the claimed saftey. Put out a contest for $1 billions to the most efficent and inexpensive solar, wind and geothermal generators, and we could probably solve the worlds engery woes almost over night.. Rocky <>< Latest Post: SQL2005 Server Managemnet Studio timeouts! Blog: www.RockyMoore.com/TheCoder/[^]
Rocky Moore wrote:
I was visiting a research site a few months ago that said a new solar array set in a 100 square mile of Nevada (USA) could generate enough power to supply the entire USA energy needs.
Provided the entire US lived within a few hundred miles of NV, transmission losses beyond that distance become prohibitive. Also solar's more expensive than most methods of power production. And in any event, if someone attempted to build a solar array that big they'd be shut down by environmentalists because it threatened the habitat of an endangered sand flea, or the like.