Maybe you're thinking of Japan, we aren't shutting down plants in the U.S.Nuclear energy is the future.
Opposition to nuclear power is the biggest failure of the Left.
I'll support it when it's not producing nuclear waste
I'll support it when it's not producing nuclear waste.
Quote from: Lord Commissar on November 12, 2014, 05:28:23 PMI'll support it when it's not producing nuclear waste
Quote from: IcyWind on November 12, 2014, 05:31:51 PMQuote from: Lord Commissar on November 12, 2014, 05:28:23 PMI'll support it when it's not producing nuclear waste"Because something doesn't immediately perform optimally, I'm going to oppose its implementation despite the fact doing as such will essentially prevent future innovation and improvement by virtue of restricting access". That's pretty much the sentiment I get whenever people say this.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 12, 2014, 05:46:47 PMQuote from: IcyWind on November 12, 2014, 05:31:51 PMQuote from: Lord Commissar on November 12, 2014, 05:28:23 PMI'll support it when it's not producing nuclear waste"Because something doesn't immediately perform optimally, I'm going to oppose its implementation despite the fact doing as such will essentially prevent future innovation and improvement by virtue of restricting access". That's pretty much the sentiment I get whenever people say this.I support it being used in very small amounts until a feasible way to reduce and get rid of waste is found.I do not support plans that feel we should just start building nuclear factories in every state until such an option is found.
Quote from: Lord Commissar on November 12, 2014, 05:28:23 PMI'll support it when it's not producing nuclear waste.Number of deaths in the U.S. due to nuclear power: 0Number of deaths in China alone due to coal: 400,000 per yearNumber of premature deaths in the U.S. due to coal: 24,000 per yearEnvironmental hazards due to coal: acid rain, erosion, global warmingEnvironmental hazards due to storing nuclear waste: noneRadiation released into the environment by coal-burning plants: 400x as much as nuclear power plantsCost of coal vs nuclear is roughly 1:1.Coal produces more waste two orders of magnitude higher than nuclear. Coal has killed more people, will kill more people, will destroy obscenely more of the environment, and will deplete far faster than nuclear.
Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on November 12, 2014, 05:51:52 PMQuote from: Lord Commissar on November 12, 2014, 05:28:23 PMI'll support it when it's not producing nuclear waste.Number of deaths in the U.S. due to nuclear power: 0Number of deaths in China alone due to coal: 400,000 per yearNumber of premature deaths in the U.S. due to coal: 24,000 per yearEnvironmental hazards due to coal: acid rain, erosion, global warmingEnvironmental hazards due to storing nuclear waste: noneRadiation released into the environment by coal-burning plants: 400x as much as nuclear power plantsCost of coal vs nuclear is roughly 1:1.Coal produces more waste two orders of magnitude higher than nuclear. Coal has killed more people, will kill more people, will destroy obscenely more of the environment, and will deplete far faster than nuclear.>implying I support coal either
>implying I support coal either
Quote from: Lord Commissar on November 12, 2014, 05:53:10 PMQuote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on November 12, 2014, 05:51:52 PMQuote from: Lord Commissar on November 12, 2014, 05:28:23 PMI'll support it when it's not producing nuclear waste.Number of deaths in the U.S. due to nuclear power: 0Number of deaths in China alone due to coal: 400,000 per yearNumber of premature deaths in the U.S. due to coal: 24,000 per yearEnvironmental hazards due to coal: acid rain, erosion, global warmingEnvironmental hazards due to storing nuclear waste: noneRadiation released into the environment by coal-burning plants: 400x as much as nuclear power plantsCost of coal vs nuclear is roughly 1:1.Coal produces more waste two orders of magnitude higher than nuclear. Coal has killed more people, will kill more people, will destroy obscenely more of the environment, and will deplete far faster than nuclear.>implying I support coal eitherBy not supporting *nuclear energy you support coal.
Who says I don't support nuclear energy?
I just don't support nuclear energy that produces highly toxic and radioactive waste that takes 50k years to decay.
Quote from: Lord Commissar on November 12, 2014, 06:02:14 PMWho says I don't support nuclear energy?You did: QuoteI'll support it when it's not producing nuclear wasteQuoteI just don't support nuclear energy that produces highly toxic and radioactive waste that takes 50k years to decay.Okay, so you don't support nuclear energy. Sounds like you want a magical energy sources with no waste, no hassle, easy implementation, and preferably it gives everyone free handjobs, too.
SpoilerWhat is nuclear fusion?
Quote from: Lord Commissar on November 12, 2014, 06:16:43 PMSpoilerWhat is nuclear fusion?Expensive and still in research/trial stages. I'm not expecting commercial use for at least another 50 years seeing as it takes fucking aaaaages for a fission reactor to be planned and built today, let alone development and breakthroughs with fusion past the present, than something to get it past environmentalists, then actual construction.There's also the other alternative which is Thorium reactors, and from what little I've heard they're the next likely "miracle fuel", with low waste, higher energy output per unit, higher abundancy than current nuclear fuels and would require slight modifications to current fission reactors. (Though don't quote me on this bit).
the one true God is Doctor Doom and we should all be worshiping him.
Lockhead Martin thinks otherwise. They're looking to get something up within a decade.
Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on November 12, 2014, 06:06:50 PMQuote from: Lord Commissar on November 12, 2014, 06:02:14 PMWho says I don't support nuclear energy?You did: QuoteI'll support it when it's not producing nuclear wasteQuoteI just don't support nuclear energy that produces highly toxic and radioactive waste that takes 50k years to decay.Okay, so you don't support nuclear energy. Sounds like you want a magical energy sources with no waste, no hassle, easy implementation, and preferably it gives everyone free handjobs, too.Oh boy, taking things way to literally I see. If you weren't looking to nitpick you'd have realized that I didn't mean it like that as the extent of my position was clarified later.SpoilerWhat is nuclear fusion?
Fusion would be great, but it's decades away from being viable. Fission is effective and safe right now.
Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on November 12, 2014, 06:31:06 PMFusion would be great, but it's decades away from being viable. Fission is effective and safe right now.Quote from: SexyPiranha on November 12, 2014, 06:35:47 PMIt's closer than you think. As stated earlier Lockheed Martin is confident they can get something up within a decade and believe they can start assembly of fusion reactors in 2017. Even if their claims dont pan out there are others who believe their fusion reactors will be just as viable within a relatively short time frame.
What's your opinion of Nuclear Energy?
