LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Originally Posted by Darth Bane 
Reply With Quote
Bear,
Here is a listing of my reasons why I think nuclear is not the affective solution for future energy consumption because it will not only affect our economies, reliable energy supplies, enviornments and our health but also future inavations to affective solutions. However, I must digress on not allowing coal power to be the future solution either. There isn’t really a good solution at this point but perhaps leaning towards hydrogen and solar power might be the solution we are all looking for. However, I will agree that coal power is 100% more dangerous for the enviornment as well and it has it’s faults. I am just merely stating that neither option are worth a damn!
Reasons
1. nuclear proliferation
a. terrorist getting a hold of nuclear materials and using them for deviant means
a. it’s easily seen throughout the world that security is a serious concern
b. dual technologies that have allowed India to have nuclear weapons disguising them in commercial applications
c. Russia is well known to have in the past nuclear factory workers try to sell nuclear products on the Black Market even as recent as in the ninties.
2. nuclear waste
a. it takes about 10,000 years til unrecycled nuclear energies can be safe, however, you can recycle the energy to reduce that to three hundred years and there isn’t an affective way of disposing of the nuclear waste not even in densely populated France said to be the best at recycling nuclear wastes. In America, we are using the Yucki Mountains hopefully for ours but for how long? What inplications will this have?
3. Economically
a. It costs 15/30% more than coal or gas plants do in their respected lifetimes
b. reliability is very slim since how every eighteen months they must shutdown for repairs leaving only a mere 15% to cover the back log
4. Enviornment
a. Nuclear power reactor factories use two-thirds of their massive water supplies that usually round in the millions of gallons to waste water that is then changed into either gas by changing of energies or back as normal supplies. The former being more common and the ladder at least not contaminated as far as scientists can discern right now. The inplications are in countries where there are droughts like Australia for one whole century is that it’s not an affective means because you must have the nuclear reactor near a large body of water without affecting the ecosystem like their near by Pacific Ocean can easily show us. So, with global warming that causes droughts one can discern that it’s not futuristic in our reality on Earth as we all know it. Debating whether or not Global Warming is an reality is absurd and mute at this point.
b. it takes ten thousand years like I have said up above until waste products are safe for humans but also what if in the process of underground storage that we do inrecreckable damage to the geotropic enviornment or rather the positive taproot to our world?
c. uranium mining is a serious concern as well as the indirect and direct causes of further global warming, but also too water shifts like droughts to further depricate our homo sapien existence on Earth
d. Only a few companies like the Japan Steel Works produce three-four coverings to hopefully decrease contamination, but others are slowly developing. However, these companies are not reaching demands nor is it projected too either.
5. Health
a. There is a study released in 2007 in regards to Germany’s youth that lived near nuclear factories were more likely to have cancer.
This point is true also in leukemia as in France and Germany
b. accidendents like:
1. Three Mile Island (1979)
2. Chernobyl Disaster (1986)
c. radioactive leaks that could happen by a nuclear meltdown like I mentioned above but further technologies could increase danger such as radioactive commercial aeroplanes, commercial cars, commercial ships and hell even radioactive houses
The following countries don’t have nuclear reactors
a. Ireland
b. Poland
c. New Zealand
The following countries are thinking or are in the process of phasing out nuclear power as a viable option for energy consumption
a. Italy
b. Sweden
c. Australia
Comprehensive listing of all countries that have nuclear weapons or thought to have by recent intelligence:
1. United States
2. United Kingdom
3. China
4. Russia
5. India
6. North Korea
7. Israel
8. France
9. Pakistan
Note: not including the nuclear trade offs that are in direct control by America and respected foreign countries. However, the true scope of nuclear technologies in my opinion is limited. We all should look at this short listing without including South Africa that dismantled their nuclear factories and a few others as well to be a high presidence for why nuclear power is not a viable option!
Bookmarks