 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Overthrown by OIL |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 | Add to favorites | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
|
Sweet Kassy Molassy Out of ice cream and PB. Would KILL for a milkshake right now.                    Since: 06-17-06 From: LoozeeAnna Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Nuclear power IS the way to go... at least until we can come up with something better. Yucca Mountain will do for now, and we can figure out other things to do with the waste, I'm sure.
Nuclear power is fairly efficient, and we're not really going to use the radioactive materials in large quantities for much else than fuel. It's very cheap. It's also very safe. Reactor technology has come a long way from Chernobyl... and even then, the problem with Chernobyl was that the site was not maintained properly. People are afraid of nuclear power plants because the media has spun an irrational view of the dangers. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES  Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Ummm, so how are you going to deal with an accident with the waste and guard nuclear facilities in developing nations. | |||
|
Sweet Kassy Molassy Out of ice cream and PB. Would KILL for a milkshake right now. Since: 06-17-06 From: LoozeeAnna Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Who said anything about developing nations?
That's part of our problem here. We need to worry about number one a little bit first. Even if it were only a few big nations switching over, that would help everyone else out (except big corporate pocketbooks) by drastically reducing petroleum demand. As far as waste management contingencies, I don't really know a whole lot about that, but I'm sure we have at least some developed. We'd treat any affected area like any other superfund site. Besides, if waste transport and management facilities and practices were properly audited by the EPA and state agencies (which they most certainly would be,) such accidents would probably be VERY few and far between. the potential gain would outweigh any potential risk. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| We've had almost 20 years to deal with Chernobyl. The international company has done nothing. What makes you think that massive nuclear proliferation will be much easier to deal with. We can think about number one all we want. But number one has to deal with number 2 through 198, also. | |||
|
Sweet Kassy Molassy Out of ice cream and PB. Would KILL for a milkshake right now. Since: 06-17-06 From: LoozeeAnna Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| What would us switching over to nuclear power have to do with other countries? I never said anything about worldwide nuclear proliferation... though if that's the way countries wanted to go, what right do we really have to say "no?" | |||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Well, you're kind of ignoring everything outside of your blinded little world. Doing so fails to acknowledge the bigger dangers and points of nuclear technology proliferation. In fact, that is exactly what you're doing. You're ignoring the dangers inherent in nuclear technology and a greater amount of materials with a marginally higher amount of oversight. | |||
|
Sweet Kassy Molassy Out of ice cream and PB. Would KILL for a milkshake right now. Since: 06-17-06 From: LoozeeAnna Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| The dangers inherent in a responsible nation switching to nuclear power are minimal.
"Ignoring everything outside?" That was for the sake of the particular argument. How would an industrialized nation starting to rely more heavily on nuclear technology which they already possess have anything to do with the spread of that technology to other countries? You've invented a point to argue about here that wasn't in any of my initial points. "Blinded little world?" You don't have to be so condescending. I don't blast you for arguing only for the sake of argument. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Sweet Kassy Molassy Actually, they're quite dangerous. One failure is deadly. The leakage in Japan in the late 90s is just one example.
Well, you're ignoring the definition of proliferation. Industrialized nations usually sell nuclear technology. Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, France, US, etc. they all sell it. That is called proliferation. Failures on the user end can be disastorous. And it doesn't matter about your initial point. You want to go nuclear. This is a point you have to deal with.
Well, you just blasted me by saying that I'm arguing for the sake of argument (which, although not offensive is untrue...and if it were this is a debate forum. Kind of the point). Also, note what are on the sides of the head. Those are blinders. The saying "blinded little world" implies one track mind. You're ignoring other factors. I pointed this out. Your fault, not mine. |
|||
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| Ziff, I wouldn't say SKM "blasted" you at all. He said you were arguing with him, which you were. Indeed, this is the debate forum, so arguing is commonplace. But he didn't say anything out of line to you. You said he was "ignoring everything outside of his blinded little world", which does indeed sound very condescending. He only said that you argue for argument's sake. I'd say his comment was the gentler of the two.
If I may argue for argument's sake for a moment: True, nuclear power is dangerous, but are the occasional leaks, spills, and meltdowns anymore dangerous than the billions of dollars in oil revenue going to the likes of the Saudi government and the Iranian government? I don't think that massive nuclear proliferation is the way to go either, because more nuclear material in the world makes it easier for someone like Kim Jong Il or the president of Iran to get their hands on some. But I hardly see how you can view nuclear power as less dangerous overall than oil. |
|||
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Koryo Yes, I should think so. Nuclear power requires a preexisting infrastructure, costing billions of dollars, and ruling out the safety issues, it still takes a good deal of time to put them into usage. Fix the power grids first, since they are pitiable and waste a lot of energy. Since I don't suspect that people will stop using electricity anytime soon. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| While fixing the power grids is something that needs to be done (remember that giant blackout a few years back), that still doesn't speak to the effects of pollution caused by oil, or the billions of dollars being given to terrorist funding dictators. | |||
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| NUCLEAR POWERED CARS!? | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| Not a nuclear powered reactor under the hood of your car, no. But nuclear power that feeds into your house can be used to charge the battery of a car (such as a plug in hybrid without the hybrid part :p ). Still, I'm not advocating a 100% (or even 50%) nuclear economy. I'm only arguing for argument's sake and pointing out logic and flaws. | |||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| I know, and I'm shouting about cars because I want to talk about Brazilian ethanol. | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| Ultimately, it would be nice to use hydrogen powered cars. The technology exists, but there are problems. If I am the first person to own a hydrogen powered car in my town, where will I get hydrogen fuel? No businessman would open a hydrogen gas station in a town with only 1 hydrogen car. So I don't buy a hydrogen car until there is a hydrogen gas station, and a hydrogen gas station doesn't move in until many people have purchased hydrogen powered cars. We are at an impasse. How to make them both happen at the same time? It's going to be a slow process.
I would like to make a couple of side notes. People get upset now that industrialized economies rely so heavily on oil. There is a reason for this, and it's not because some evil rich billionaire sold his soul to the devil. Oil is an incredibly cheap, incredibly abundant, and incredibly practical fuel source. Also: what's this about the oil companies' moral obligations to help this country stop using oil? That makes no sense at all. A company should teach its customers how to avoid using the very product that made it rich? I suppose McDonald's should be teaching us to stop eating so much fast food, Walmart should show Americans how not to buy cheap clothes and toys, and Bill Gates should convince Americans to stop buying computers? Really, people who talk about the moral obligations of an oil company are just looking for someone to blame. |
|||
Ailure Mr. Shine I just want peace...  Since: 11-17-05 From: Sweden Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ZiffBut but but but, we need all thoose super heroes. While I'm pro nuclear power, it can't possible cover all energy the civilizations needs. The nuclear fuel would run out in just a few years.  |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| A recent CSIRO report has said that Australia has the capacity to meet its entire electricity supply with solar energy, the base-load supply, cost-effectively, and within a decade or so, if the government were prepared to invest in it.
Meanwhile, Howard continues to claim solar can't meet "base-load" supplies no matter how many times he's contradicted in parliament and elsewhere, and continues to stoke a nuclear debate solely to wedge the Labor Party and tout that "coal is the future". Bah. |
|||
|
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
Originally posted by AilureOriginally posted by ZiffBut but but but, we need all thoose super heroes. That I doubt. Dealing with the byproducts of nuclear energy might be a problem though. |
|||
|
Metal Man88 Gold axe It appears we have been transported to a time in which everything is on fire! Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| More power to the oil fools. They'll use up all the oil in the world and be done with faster that way.
It's simple: Switch to different fuels, like biodiesel. Nuclear power as of now is such a hideous figure that oil looks nice by comparison. Radiation, cancer, destruction... do you really want the blood of future generations on your hands? It's been done without oil before, it will have to be done without oil soon enough. Just let those dumb oil companies pump it all out and die from their efficiency. |
|||
|
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Metal Man88 I reject your statement because it's unbacked; your usage of "radiation, cancer, destruction" attempts to equate nuclear weaponry with nuclear power, and you marginalize the cause of nuclear power by doing so. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 | Add to favorites | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Overthrown by OIL |
| |
