General discussion


The Nuclear debate rages on...

By Benevolence ·
George Ou recently opened up a particularly large can of worms recently when he wrote an article discussing the myths surrounding Windows XP and power consumption. Much of the debate has turned into a discussion on how to best produce power whilst reducing pollution.

One thing many people seem to agree on is that whether or not humans are contributing to global warming, it is in our best interests to reduce the effect and protect our environment.

Some of us believe we need to move toward nuclear energy production, and some of us believe this is a bad idea.

With so many new developments in energy production, and so many differing arguments, what do you think is the direction we should head in?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics

by georgeou In reply to No offence

Pollution is a LOT more complex than CO2. There are many substances that are far worse than CO2. If CO2 is your only reference point for pollution, then that is an unfortunate and twisted view of what pollution really is.

Collapse -

Facts and Fiction

by Benevolence In reply to No offence

As I said before, I am not just talking about CO2. The US really is one of the worlds worst polluters, that is just a fact, I will give you the evidence when I can access it.

I am really not sure that I ever mentioned Bush. I agree that the Senate is more trustworthy, but they are still politicians trying to serve their own needs.

Collapse -

George: James Lovelock may be saying what you want to hear

by neilb@uk In reply to No offence

But it doesn't necessarily mean that he's right for everyone. He's seen as a bit flaky over here although, as he supports the current government's u-turn towards nuclear, he's getting back in with the establishment.

Let's be a little more creative and targeted...

The simple solution for the US is to cut back on per capita consumption. That is an immediate effect. We use half as much per energy capita as you and produce half as much CO2 and half the pollution per capita. I wouldn't ask this of Maxwell as he throws a wobbly but I'll ask you, George: justify it.

For the UK, we have nowhere safe on our little island to store the waste from working and decommissioned nuclear power stations however small you seem to think it is. I suppose we could pay, say, Morocco to store it in the middle of the Sahara but they're Muslims so couldn't be trusted not to sneak some spent fuel out and **** it up in the middle of New york, London or Jerusalam. Can we stick it in the middle of the Nevada Desert? No! Australia? Bugger off!

We in the UK have eight of the world's best twenty sites for tidal power generation with an average tidal range of seven metres. The Rance Barrage in France produces 12% of their electricity at 18 Euro cents per kWh, versus 25 per kWh for nuclear and the French have pretty good expertise in nuclear - more than both of us.

We must be mad to think of going nuclear. Building a barrage across, say, the Severn is not any nore of an engineering feat than building a 200GW nuclear complex. And we get a road across!

You build 'em if you want them. We have a viable alternative. And Lovelock agrees!**8.stm

Collapse -

It's a different country that's spread out over a larger area

by georgeou In reply to No offence

First of all, I'd rather breath the air here in American than Asia or even Europe. We have some of the tightest emission standards in the world. CO2 is a measure of activity, not emission control. There has almost been a cult built up around CO2 because it's the only measurement we can ding against the Western nations.

We're not living in cramped European or Asian cities, we're spread out. Here in the states when we have a massive bus driving around, it actually pollutes more because theres one or two people sitting on that bus. Americans are not going to all move in to the city and live like the Europeans or Asians, it's not going to happen. To get the kind of population density of Europe we'd have to all move in to Texas or California/Oregon and that's just not going to happen.

But what will cut down pollution of every kind is nuclear energy and it isn't just James Lovelock, it's people like Patrick Moore founder of Greenpeace and many other leading environmentalists.

Collapse -

George: Try harder - TWICE AS MUCH

by neilb@uk In reply to No offence

You're a bigger country? I don't disagree and that might add some on to transport but the per capita difference is still twice. I lost a bet with Maxwell Edison - for which I still owe him a steak dinner - when I discovered, to my surprise, that you certainly don't drive twice as far on a per capita basis. Population density in New York is no different to London.

There's nothing wrong with the air in London.

So, going to try again?

Collapse -

As I keep saying

by Benevolence In reply to No offence

As I keep saying George, I NEVER MENTIONED BUSH, except to say that I NEVER MENTIONED BUSH.

Also. again... - 5% of the worlds population creating 25% of the worlds pollution - It makes a good mantra for you to correct your understanding.

Collapse -

You said "administration"

by georgeou In reply to No offence

You mentioned lies from the administration, and I asked that we keep politics out of the discussion.

Collapse -

I'm with George

There is more to it then just CO2 emmissions. The US may produce high levels of emmissions but our production is many times that of other nations. Just look at GDP.

and also check this out.

Collapse -

Are you being cute with your numbers?

by DelbertPGH In reply to Couple of points

The U.S. has the cleanest tailpipes, sure. But we've got about 300 million of them (about one motor vehicle for every adult and child), and we use vast amounts of energy in other applications, and in total produce about 24% of the world's CO2. Are you saying that there is some poor country out there that generates more than our 24% share? That's not the case. Or are you just saying that the average car (or power plant, or unit of industrial production) in a poor country is dozens of times more polluting than its American counterpart? That's definitely true.

I get the feeling from the way you pound the floor and bite the furniture every time you talk about a liberal trying to regulate something in the public interest (maybe I exaggerate a tiny bit), that you feel that DEMOCRATS=BAD and REPUBLICANS=GOOD, along the line of AM radio logic. It's true you will find fare more Democrats supporting flawed agendas like Kyoto ("maybe we can't do something useful, but we can still do something") than Republicans, but have you heard any voice among Republicans in favor of any clean air measure? Every Republican these days acts like an ideologue who, if he sees a clean smokestack, can't see anything but lost jobs and lost freedom behind it, and maybe gay marriage and necrophilia, too.

Collapse -


by Benevolence In reply to Are you being cute with y ...

Thankyou. That was exactly what I was trying to get across. It's not about how much each machine produces, but the total! Right on.

Related Discussions

Related Forums