[Robman]

Jblade, on 01 March 2015 - 11:41 AM, said:

About 2 high profile ones, and a few little ones. I literally just told you how many people have died due to the other power systems and we've only had them for a couple of decades longer. Does the 171,000 dead people from the hydroplant, and the 100,000 dead coal miners not kind of dwarf the fatalities from nuclear power?

While your hydroplant and coal minor deaths are easy to quantify, the nuclear deaths are not easy to quantify.

Jblade, on 01 March 2015 - 11:41 AM, said:

Cool, what are they?

Magic the magician hasn't revealed yet. However in the mean time, there's plenty of viable solutions that don't involve the creation of radioactive waste.
We're not gonna keep an eye on it for 5 billion years folks, it's as simple as that.

[Kyanos]

Energy surrounds us, as above so below. Look to the auroras, and the telluric currents. Read into early telegraph power, and fires. I know magic rob

[Robman]

Person of Color, on 01 March 2015 - 11:45 AM, said:

Your argument is a fallacy. Look up "no true scotsman."

Radioactive waste doesn't exist. Whenever humans build something, it stays in pristine shape forever and is never subjected to decay, negligence or mal-intent.

Happy now?

You're argument consists of: Bad things don't happen and radioactive waste is good.

That is your argument. Think about that ... just .. for a minute or so..



ALSO .. If westinghouse farms maintenance out to a 3rd party, you think that's a good thing?

Allo? My name is Raj from so n so tech support, how may I help you?

[Jblade]

Quote

Magic the magician hasn't revealed yet. However in the mean time, there's plenty of viable solutions that don't involve the creation of radioactive waste.

Want to share them with us? I assume we're talking about something completely safe, that doesn't poison the air or pose significant risk in extracting it from the planet. Also it has to actually produce a viable amount of power to provide energy to entire countries.

Quote

While your hydroplant and coal minor deaths are easy to quantify, the nuclear deaths are not easy to quantify.

I don't get what you're saying here, sorry - nearly 300,000 human deaths is Ok but the extremely low amount of deaths from Nuclear power makes it tainted somehow? Do you have some form of proof that it'll be much higher?

[Robman]

Jblade, on 01 March 2015 - 11:58 AM, said:

Want to share them with us? I assume we're talking about something completely safe, that doesn't poison the air or pose significant risk in extracting it from the planet. Also it has to actually produce a viable amount of power to provide energy to entire countries.

I don't get what you're saying here, sorry - nearly 300,000 human deaths is Ok but the extremely low amount of deaths from Nuclear power makes it tainted somehow? Do you have some form of proof that it'll be much higher?

It means when those disasters happened there was an immediate cause and effect which could be easily measured.

Radioactive poisoning is not easily measured. Affects your DNA, shows up in shit for generations.

It's literally the destroyer of worlds, stop arguing in favour of it.

If nuclear power stations start getting attacked ... look the fuck out, cause it won't be pretty.

Textile building collapses in Bangladesh killing over 1000 workers. I guess we should stop wearing clothes now.

[Kyanos]

Quote

Also it has to actually produce a viable amount of power to provide energy to entire countries.

How much energy does this entity desire?

At what cost must we produce it?

If you think about it, your thoughts are energy. Must they also be supplied by magicians.

[Jblade]

Quote

Textile building collapses in Bangladesh killing over 1000 workers. I guess we should stop wearing clothes now.

Sorry, but you've pretty much proven you're just arguing for it's sake with this little edit.

Your EXACT point you're trying to say is because of Chernobyl and Fukishimi we should stop using Nuclear power. Then you make a snide edit saying we should stop wearing clothes because of a clothes factory disaster? This is the point you are trying to make.

[Robman]

Jblade, on 01 March 2015 - 12:11 PM, said:

Sorry, but you've pretty much proven you're just arguing for it's sake with this little edit.

Your EXACT point you're trying to say is because of Chernobyl and Fukishimi we should stop using Nuclear power. Then you make a snide edit saying we should stop wearing clothes because of a clothes factory disaster? This is the point you are trying to make.

The point I've stated numerous times now is that: Radioactive waste is a by product which makes nuclear energy unfeasible. Why? Because it lasts billions of years before it decays and kills all life in it's path in the meantime. We can't contain or babysit this shit for 5 billion years. Not to mention a nuclear plant is a HUGE target for opposing countries.

My point about the clothing plant collapse is in reference to your hydro and mining disasters. They are a localized disaster. Nuclear disasters are not localized and like I said, mutates DNA which will effect large generations.


You just don't listen to the point I make in the very beginning which was:

What part about creating a substance that can kill life for billions of years do people just not get?

Still haven't fully acknowledged this. So you see, it's actually you arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Jblade]

They killed far, far more people than the 2 nuclear disasters have done. They're just as extremely dangerous on the short term as radiation can be on the long term. If a terrorist blew up the hoover dam the damage would be catastrophic. There IS no power generation that is safe, every single one has huge drawbacks (yes even wind turbines, because they kill birds and shit, take up tons of room, and produce pretty poor and inconsistent power)

I'm not gonna convince you and you're not gonna convince me, so let's just settle the debate on at least a polite disagreement.

[Robman]

I love you Jblade, I'll hold your hand when our eyes melt and the shock wave disintegrates us

[High Treason]

So, when did we start creating nuclear fuel? You do realize that uranium is already radioactive when it comes out of the ground right? It is naturally occurring.

The thing is, not only can we re-use about 90% of the spent fuel, the depleted substances we cannot use are controllable. Oil, gas and coal are not, any waste from these drifts off into the air and gets EVERYWHERE. Nuclear fuel comes out of the ground radioactive and when it's done, it gets put back somewhere slightly less radioactive; in short, the waste is controllable.

How many disasters have happened in recent years? Seems there have been more oil and gas related ones. The only Nuclear one I can think of is Fukishima and that was due to natural causes. One good thing came out of Chernobyl and that was the fact that it caused people to improve the safety of nuclear energy to ridiculous proportions, modern reactors are safer than the alternative power sources and I know which one I would rather live next door to... Unfortunately I live near a gas one.

[Robman]

High Treason, on 01 March 2015 - 12:47 PM, said:

So, when did we start creating nuclear fuel? You do realize that uranium is already radioactive when it comes out of the ground right? It is naturally occurring.

It gets refined/enriched and concentrated... you're a pain in the ass sometimes


The vast majority of all nuclear power reactors require 'enriched' uranium fuel in which the proportion of the uranium-235 isotope has been raised from the natural level of 0.7% to about 3.5% to 5%. The enrichment process needs to have the uranium in gaseous form, so on the way from the mine it goes through a conversion plant which turns the uranium oxide into uranium hexafluoride (UF6).

The enrichment plant concentrates the useful U-235, leaving about 85% of the uranium by separating gaseous uranium hexafluoride into two streams: One stream is enriched to the required level of U-235 and then passes to the next stage of the fuel cycle. The other stream is depleted in U-235 and is called 'tails' or depleted uranium. It is mostly uranium-238 and has little immediate use.

Today's enrichment plants use the centrifuge process, with thousands of rapidly-spinning vertical tubes. Research is being conducted into laser enrichment, which appears to be a promising new technology.

A small number of reactors, notably the Canadian CANDU reactors, do not require uranium to be enriched.


They all create radioactive waste water.

They like rocketing shit into space, I wonder why they don't do that for now, lol .. oh yeah costs too much money.

[High Treason]

More quotes from Wikipedia... And it still doesn't mean jack. We took something already radioactive, modified it a bit and then made use of it. The environmental impact is much lower than with other fuel sources.

The water from a nuclear plant is hardly radioactive any more than anything else - pretty much everything in the universe has some level of radiation present, if you hadn't noticed, the universe is very radioactive and is quite volatile - the water outside is not passing the reactor. Modern reactors use a closed loop, usually with heavy water, to cool the reactor, another loop cools this one. The level of radioactivity escaping the open loop at the end of the process is negligible.


You know... They do send nuclear products into space. I believe a small radioisotope thermoelectric generator powers Curiosity.

[Robman]

High Treason, on 01 March 2015 - 01:09 PM, said:

More quotes from Wikipedia... And it still doesn't mean jack. We took something already radioactive, modified it a bit and then made use of it. The environmental impact is much lower than with other fuel sources.

We modified it a lot and yeah, for now.
How's the marine life doing?

You know that because you wiki'd also. Radioactivity and meltdowns are bad, mmmkay.

[Kyanos]

Relativity is also bad. Time is constant. Math != truth.

[High Treason]

Last time I heard of any marine life being in trouble it was because of oil spills or global warming.

[Mblackwell]

Robman, on 01 March 2015 - 12:54 PM, said:

It gets refined/enriched and concentrated...

So does petroleum.

[Hank]

I'm late as usual, still some links

Coal Ash is very radioactive.
http://www.scientifi...-nuclear-waste/

The amount of waste coal/oil/gas generated per house is half a barrel a day - into the atmosphere.
The equivalent nuclear of waste generated per house is 3 cartons of milk for fifty years.
http://canadianenerg...r-half-century/

One can complain all they want about nuclear power, at this moment it's the cleanest we've got, methinks

[Hendricks266]

Robman, on 01 March 2015 - 12:16 PM, said:

What part about creating a substance that can kill life for billions of years do people just not get?

What you "just don't get" is that we won't create said substances thanks to modern engineering. Actually read Viper's posts.

You can quit reposting this bullshit now.

[MYHOUSE.MAP]

Hendricks266, on 01 March 2015 - 03:06 PM, said:

What you "just don't get" is that we won't create said substances thanks to modern engineering. Actually read Viper's posts.

You can quit reposting this bullshit now.

I'll have you know that I've watched several sci-fi movies. That makes me an expert on science!

[Robman]

Hendricks266, on 01 March 2015 - 03:06 PM, said:

What you "just don't get" is that we won't create said substances thanks to modern engineering. Actually read Viper's posts.

You can quit reposting this bullshit now.

"Aged used fuel may also be stored in above-ground dry cask storage, in the same manner as the currently operating fleet of US power reactors.[5]"

Sorry, I didn't get the memo when the world rejoiced as we created 100% safe Nuclear energy. ( because it didn't happen )



What part about creating a substance that can kill life for billions of years do people just not get?

[Hendricks266]

Robman, on 01 March 2015 - 03:47 PM, said:

100% safe Nuclear energy

Look up the no true scotsman fallacy like Viper said. Evidence says nuclear energy is safer than fossil fuels.

High Treason, on 01 March 2015 - 12:47 PM, said:

So, when did we start creating nuclear fuel? You do realize that uranium is already radioactive when it comes out of the ground right? It is naturally occurring.

The thing is, not only can we re-use about 90% of the spent fuel, the depleted substances we cannot use are controllable. Oil, gas and coal are not, any waste from these drifts off into the air and gets EVERYWHERE. Nuclear fuel comes out of the ground radioactive and when it's done, it gets put back somewhere slightly less radioactive; in short, the waste is controllable.

[Robman]

ok, I believe you. I'd rather screw the younger hooker also.

[Wienerhole]

Hendricks266, on 26 February 2015 - 09:30 AM, said:

There is no need to enumerate all sexual possibilities.

Of course not, only the politically powerful ones. Who cares if the other orientations feel marginalized and left out.

Hendricks266, on 26 February 2015 - 09:30 AM, said:

My point is that teaching consent would be "teaching a man to fish".

You want to use compulsory schooling to teach consent? Speaking of nuclear...

[MrBlackCat]

All of this reminds me of the strange idea that aircraft/flying vs automobile safety. Sure both are dangerous, but planes are MANY times safer than automobiles. I think it is the terror level maybe. Most of the time automobile crashes are instant, where as plane crashes are filled with more time for terror and so on... that is more scary to think about for me personally... but I still know (ok, believe) that airline transportation is much safer than automobile transportation.

Why is no one talking about Nuclear Fusion Reactors? If you do 40 hours research into this, you will be hard pressed not to believe in conspiracy, or at least suppression of technology to maintain control of power production. I am confident that it is finally a reality. After 30 years of "being close", we are finally there, in my opinion, which is based on the best study I could make and a few phone calls of great length and depth to some people involved with the supporting technologies of this way to generate electricity. Effectively, "no waste"... no radiation etc. Are their risks? Of course, but nothing near those faced with what was primarily overcome with Nuclear Energy, which I support the use of and consider a lesser of evils, and/or a necessary evil.

Research Nuclear Fusion and wonder why the project was moved to France... just have a look into it... watch a reactor work... find out why it works, and what impact it would have "if it did" work. It will be worth the trip, I promise.

MrBlackCat

[Hendricks266]

Robman, on 01 March 2015 - 03:57 PM, said:

ok, I believe you. I'd rather screw the younger hooker also.

I'd take nuclear fusion over nuclear fission any day, but that doesn't mean we should keep using fossil fuels in the meantime.

CharlesT, on 01 March 2015 - 04:07 PM, said:

Of course not, only the politically powerful ones. Who cares if the other orientations feel marginalized and left out.

I'm not talking "consensual sex includes activities X, Y, and Z". I'm suggesting "Consensual sex is defined at the minimum as {definition}, but how individuals carry out consensual sexual activity is endlessly customizable.". What examples to give, if any, should be implementation-defined.

[I use "{definition}" because I don't feel like looking up the formal definition, but it would be something like "stimulation of sexual organs where all participants give their permission to the activity".]

In the nutrition unit in Health class, they don't teach you "these are all the recipes you can make". They teach you how to analyze what nutrients food can and should contain. For sex, the primary ingredient is consent.

CharlesT, on 01 March 2015 - 04:07 PM, said:

You want to use compulsory schooling to teach consent? Speaking of nuclear...

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

[High Treason]

I intended to bring them up if the discussion continued. At the moment, fission is the lesser evil of the available means of generating electricity, but it's almost a century old so Fusion, once made viable, is the way forward from there.

I personally haven't seen any evidence to support Fusion being viable yet because the last time I researched it, it was taking more power just to cause a fusion reaction than the actual reaction produced... Though this was around six years ago and I got distracted with other things I wanted to research, I've been meaning to catch up with where they are with it, I hope they've made good progress.

You do realize though that the first time some guy dies because he didn't bolt the door shut properly or something, all the Robman's in the world will go nuts and say Fusion is too dangerous to use, is a lie, is against god or whatever.



Imagine if internal combustion engines had never been invented - or cars - and somebody today built one and proposed sticking this metal block with explosions happening in it inside a metal can with a tank of highly flammable liquid (required to make those explosions happen) that you could ride around in, it would never get off the ground.

[Wienerhole]

MrBlackCat, on 01 March 2015 - 04:10 PM, said:

All of this reminds me of the strange idea that aircraft/flying vs automobile safety. Sure both are dangerous, but planes are MANY times safer than automobiles.

Depends on how you measure: http://www.flyingmag...y-safer-driving

[Mblackwell]

High Treason, on 01 March 2015 - 04:20 PM, said:

Imagine if internal combustion engines had never been invented - or cars - and somebody today built one and proposed sticking this metal block with explosions happening in it inside a metal can with a tank of highly flammable liquid (required to make those explosions happen) that you could ride around in, it would never get off the ground.

Spoiler

Yes I know this is a bad joke.

[Mblackwell]

Person of Color, on 01 March 2015 - 11:45 AM, said:

The Tesla Model S is just fucking cool though. Ever sit in one? Or see one on the road? They're pretty common here. If I had that much money to blow, and I wanted a luxury car, that would be the car I'd buy. It's so awesome it just exudes cool from everywhere.



I used to have an '04 Elantra GT. It was a good car. Handled friggin' awesome. Engine wasn't super power but man was it refined.

Also anyone shopping for a Prius doesn't give a shit about "fun."

They're awesome cars (Tesla), but yeah I could never afford it.

I know if VW makes an electric car as fun to drive as my '06 3.6L Passat I'll jump on board as soon as I can.

Which will probably be after I've driven this car into the ground.