nuclear energy

[thecarrotdude]

Originally Posted by SecretMaster ...treating uranium and enriching it is much more environmentally damaging than refining crude oil.

I don't think thats true. If you look at all the energy uses, and waste produced in mining and refining coal/crude oil and then the waste produced during its use, it is lot more harmful to the environment than refining uranium. In addition you don't need NEARLY as much uranium as you need crude oil, or any other fossil fuels for that matter. The life cycle of "nuclear energy" is a lot cleaner and produces less waste than the life cycle of "fossil fuel energy".

Plus some random facts I found about health concerns:
*A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage.
*Several large studies in the US, Canada, and Europe have found no evidence of any increase in cancer mortality among people living near nuclear facilities.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle

why people are against nuclear power:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear

[Luvian]

Originally Posted by Carson Drayke This discussion seems kind of jumbled. There are large corporations involved in the oil industry and the power industry, but they are not the same and don't have the same lobby. The power industry has a significant interest in things like electric cars, since they'd be supplying the electricity. They have no reason to lobby for oil interests. Coal, oil, and natural gas are resources they have to buy, so they want to keep prices low for all of these. They can be active in personal solar power and wind power, or not, depending on whether they have a stake as seller/installer and whether there's governmental pressure to push this.

What you guys don't seem to realize is that things are not so clear cut. Just because a company has in interest in one field doesn't mean they can't have a secondary interest in another field. Mega corporations are mega because they own other corporations.

But you have to ask yourself, which field is going to make them more money this generation? Oil of course. These companies are disinterested; they are led by a board and on that board are people in it purely for the money. Why would these people settle for some profits in fifteen years when they can get lots of profits now? For these companies oil shortage isn't a problem; there's a bigger demand so they can sell their oil at a premium,they're making more profits than ever. Sure one day they will start focusing on their secondary interest, but they won't make a push with their renewable energy companies before it's more profitable than oil and it will be a very long time before that happen, because shortage = bigger demand = bigger profit.

Is it really surprising your Government isn't pushing for green ecology and renewable energy sources when your president is chin deep in the oil industry? Compare his salary as a president with what he get from the oil industry, and ask yourself what's going to keep him fed once he isn't in office. I'm not saying he's getting bribed, I'm saying him and and his family are oil moguls.

[SecretMaster]

Originally Posted by thecarrotdude I don't think thats true. If you look at all the energy uses, and waste produced in mining and refining coal/crude oil and then the waste produced during its use, it is lot more harmful to the environment than refining uranium. In addition you don't need NEARLY as much uranium as you need crude oil, or any other fossil fuels for that matter. The life cycle of "nuclear energy" is a lot cleaner and produces less waste than the life cycle of "fossil fuel energy". Plus some random facts I found about health concerns: *A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage. *Several large studies in the US, Canada, and Europe have found no evidence of any increase in cancer mortality among people living near nuclear facilities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Reliability why people are against nuclear power: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear

Several things.

First off, I don't read wikipedia or cite it when people link to it for debates/discussions. One of the things that has been drilled into my head at my college is that wikipedia is a huge no no, and is rife with academic shortcomings. I'll use it to say, look at a band or music. But when I want to learn/read up on things, I never use wikipedia. I may be a stickler in this sense, but I think it is for the better.

Secondly, when you quoted me you completely ignored my preface to that statement, which said "from what I've heard/read". By no means do I state things and think I'm 100% right. I fully admit I can be wrong and I'm more than happy when people show me data to prove me wrong.

[thecarrotdude]

Originally Posted by SecretMaster Several things. First off, I don't read wikipedia or cite it when people link to it for debates/discussions. One of the things that has been drilled into my head at my college is that wikipedia is a huge no no, and is rife with academic shortcomings. I'll use it to say, look at a band or music. But when I want to learn/read up on things, I never use wikipedia. I may be a stickler in this sense, but I think it is for the better. Secondly, when you quoted me you completely ignored my preface to that statement, which said "from what I've heard/read". By no means do I state things and think I'm 100% right. I fully admit I can be wrong and I'm more than happy when people show me data to prove me wrong.

No need to get so defensive. My reply was by no means an attack on what you said. Your reply makes it sound as if I disregarded the part of your response which said "from what I've heard/read". But....how??? I never said that you DIDN'T state things and think your'e 100% right.

Anyway. Also If you don't trust wikipedia, then check up on the sources that are given at the bottom of the page. I agree you shouldn't use a wiki for lets say a college thesis paper, but for general facts and discussion, wikipedia is more than sufficient. Plus if you suspect something is false, then check that statement's source or check another source. Also you should start posting some sources too. If you add a "from what I've heard/read" before all of your statements, you might as well not post it because you could have just made it up.

[SpiritWarrior]

Wiki is genereally correct, but it can be edited by anyone claiming to have credentials. It is also not immune to special interests since like I said in earlier posts, they can buy experts to post false info. up. Much of the time though it simply had inaccuracies rather than deliberate minsinfo. and I find these are uncommon anyways. I generally use Wiki when curious about something I know nothing of, but sometimes check stuff I know much about and find it to be pretty much OK. Just my 2 on wikipedia.

[Rikard T'Aranaxz]

Wikipedia is often edited by people who have done a little reseach into the subject, about undergraduate level. Because of that, its a usefull place to start a reseach from. It describes general processes quite well and helps you understand the terminology in the more advanced pieces.