 |
| 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 - Non-Proliferation Issues |
New poll |  |  |
| Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Rom Manic                   Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6294 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| There are many countries who have signed the Non-Proliferation Act for Nuclear WMD's. The US being one of them, they still have thousands of nukes stored away.
So why don't they dismantle them? The strongest argument I've heard is because of the active Uranium. Where would they put it all? Here's an idea. In a reactor. How about that? Construct nuclear power plants for countries who need lots of power now like the Middle East and many parts of Asia. There are security issues, of course. But what if all the people involved with making these WMD's, like nuclear arms scientists and such agreed to sign a pact to swear secrecy on these methods and be charged with treason if they broke it? The world needs power. Nuclear Power is one of the cleanest forms of energy on Earth, and one of the most efficient. So why won't we get cracking? |
|||
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep  Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6309 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| so you're saying that you want to ship weapons grade uranium (or plutonium) into the middle east?
are you stupid? that's like handing them the weapons with a little red bow attatched |
|||
|
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6294 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| You seem very insecure. This is a helping hand effort, not a fucking gift offering. Plus it's inside fuel rods, and then it's contained within a reactor that is virtually inaccessible. Not only because of security, but because of the extreme heat and constant flooding of water to keep the fuel rods from melting.
You tell me how easy that it will be to just waltz in there to grab a few rods. People like you are why terrorists exist. You have so much bias towards the middle east. Hey, here's a though: Go live there for a bit. See how wonderful it is. |
|||
Rydain Sir Kibble Blaze Phoenix Runs with the Dragon Within  Since: 11-18-05 From: State College, PA Last post: 6299 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| *Rydain administers a chill pill to the thread
Please discuss the issue without personal attacks. At any rate, how exactly would they transport weapons-grade radioactive material to the new power plants in a way that would prevent it from being used for more weapons instead? I looked around on Google and found some mention of processing the material into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, which would work in reactors but be useless for weapons. Is that the plan or do they have something else in mind? |
|||
Wurl Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6336 days Last view: 6336 days |
| ||
Originally posted by geeogree You ignorant 'tard. Not everybody in the Middle East is a terrorist, or tearist, as you probably say. |
|||
|
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6294 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| Well, firstly you dismantle the nuclear weapon at the Warhead by removing the plutonium. It is only the size of a baseball, keep in mind, but without proper radiation shielding those doing such a thing will most certainly suffer from severe radiation poisoning.
Afterwards, the plutonium is then placed in a casing which is properly shielded against radiation for transport. Actual transport would obviously not be dealt with normal shipping methods. I would probably recommend the stuff be carried on a military class frigate with an escort, then airlifted to the reactor site once on the eastern continent, stopping at military installations for fuel. This is all done, of course, when the reactor is ready to go and ready for testing. Otherwise, whats the point of shipping it out there just to sit around and risk a radiation leak? In the meantime, it would be best to educate those interested in how to operate a Nuclear Power facility. Their curriculum would probably be how to operate a monitoring device, how the entire facility operates and some basic knowledge of Nuclear Fission and chemistry. Money issues are non-issue. You give a little for construction, and you get all the power you ever need. Not only does this give more incentive for jobs to be opened up, it should promote the technological industry growth in those countries who support the projects. Do you not see how wonderful it would be over there? I think this is probably one of the best ideas ever. And we all know why America has an issue with Iran's Nuclear Program. But they need more power now more than ever, so lets give it to them. At least Russia isn't so thickheaded for once. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6294 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| geeogree, Wurl. Smarten up and stop name calling. | |||
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| This is all premised on the idea that it's a GOOD thing to spread nuclear power ever wider.
Until we come up with nuclear powerplants that are inherently safe (as in, laws-of-physics-make-meltdowns-impossible safe), instead of relying on fallable "engineered safety" measures, I'm extremely skeptical of the scope for expanding nuclear power. The dangers are too great, especially if we're proposing to spread it to countries with less developed infrastructure. Just because nuclear power is relatively safe in America, who says it's going to be safe elsewhere? And of course no-one's solved the nuclear waste disposal issues yet. Many European countries with extremely safe nuclear energy programs are rolling them back for that reason alone. Then there's the mind-boggling expense... nuclear energy is hideously uncompetitive, requiring huge initial outlays of funding and constant subsidisation. Since the 1950s the subsidies to nuclear energy worldwide have amounted about a TRILLION dollars. Annual British subsidies to the nuclear industry cost the UK government more than a BILLION pounds. Are you prepared to foot THAT bill for dozens of other countries? If there are to be massive funding outlays of that size going to energy, it should not go to the energy industry which has had a half a century and billions of dollars to prove itself and still has major problems. Throw it into the bevvy of renewables which have shown promise at a fraction of the cost, and the technology is moving ever-forward. Safety, cost, waste disposal, the potential alternatives... these are compelling reasons why we don't want reactors blooming across the world. And as for the actual case, beyond the assumption that nuclear energy is an unambiguously good thing: Providing nuclear energy as a bribe to not proliferate weapons seems dangerously insane to me, I don't understand how it's supposed to stop weapons proliferation. Here's a riddler for you: how do you de-nuclearise India, Pakistan and Israel? The first two aren't non-proliferation signatories (Iran is, which is the only reason we have any leverage at all) and Israel doesn't even openly admit its nuclear capabilities. (edited by Arwon on 01-20-06 10:50 PM) (edited by Arwon on 01-20-06 10:57 PM) |
|||
|
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6294 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| What kind of alternatives do you suggest? Coal? Geothermal? Or (Dare I say) Solar Power? Perhaps a big windmill might substitute enough for this. Yes, they're all cheaper and safer but their end results are either unsatisfactory or harmful to the environment, even untested.
Solar Power was thought for a long time to be our best alternative. Now we can see that won't happen because a solar panel cannot pump out enough juice to power much. Even if we made alot of them, and made an orbital sattelite to magnify the suns shine, there would have to be one for every solar plant being made. Geothermal...I kinda like the idea, but how can we harness the magma flowing beneath the earth when the deepest anyone has ever gone below the surface of the Earth is 8 miles? The crust is very thick, and to carry heat that far doesn't seem possible. Windmills just look dumb, put simply. Effective, perhaps, but at the same time, do we really want a bunch of windmills lying around at the sides of roads and just occupying space? To counter your point about using this as a bribe to not allow nuclear weapons, that it is not. This is an opportunity to focus on more important issues like the future of their country and giving them power to their cities. To put it one way, both Industry and Technological Growth have a HUGE opportunity to benefit from this in third world countries. Yes, these countries might have a "less developed infrastructure" as you put it, and I agree, but using this new advancement, I feel change would be for the better. In the case that a country becomes unstable, politically or otherwise, then a nuclear reactor does become a threat. Which is why the counter measures are the responsibility of the Government and Military. Not the US, not the UN, but the country in question. If their citizens can incite a rebellion of significant force, then I'm sure the military will be able to supress it with equal force. And now we ask ourselves: Why the constant subsidization? Is it really that hard to keep a Power Plant operational without constant funding? I think the reason the Government throws out so much money is because they signed a contract saying they would. Not that they probably don't have to, they can't really go back on it for legal issues. I don't think it costs a billion dollars a year to keep a Nuclear Reactor functional. Plus, the chance of a meltdown is pretty slim, however more increased by the fact that they will be in third world countries. PS: I'm not paying. If I could, I would, but thats up to the Government of the country in question to build a Nuclear Power plant. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6294 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| Ummm...Nuclear fuel, a massive safety staff plus security and ridiculous maintenance means that it costs LOTS of money to run a nuclear powerplant. | |||
|
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6294 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| ...Am I the only one here who thinks this is a worthwhile investment for any country? | |||
Koneko Plasma Whisp  Since: 11-17-05 From: Tartarus. We get faster internet than you. Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| ...no. Are you the only one here who thinks that any country could afford this worthwhile investment? If it cannot, where does the money come from? And if a meltdown occurs, would such a country be able to handle the cleanup? Where does the money for that come from? Do you suggest loaning it to them on the off-chance they might be able to pay it back, those billions of dollars?
And the places that need to be given electric power are the ones where hospitals need to be able to store vaccines, where people need fresh water. A couple of fridges for the clinic, and a well. That's the sort of thing we should supply. These things are easily done with solar panels, and few of them at that. Unless of course televisions are more important than medicines and fresh water. Then we need nuclear power given to the rest of the world. Nuclear power would be effective if massive power grids were constructed to distribute this electricity, but then the cost rises higher and you realize it's more efficient and cost-effective to replace the power lines and nuclear plant with small, localized solar plants. So that's my viewpoint. |
|||
Snow Tomato Snap Dragon  Since: 12-31-05 From: NYC Last post: 6315 days Last view: 6300 days |
| ||
| I can see where you're comming from. I always thought that to improve poverty stricken countries, first they'd need the basic resources. Energy being one of these.
A major problem with givin Iran nuclear materials though, is that their government is actively participating in a nuclear program. If the government is corrupt, I don't think we should be handing them uranium and plutonium. Although, I don't see why America is allowed to have all the nuclear weapons it does. Considering we're the only ones who have ever used a nuclear bomb in warfare.. well then again, that's probably why we're allowed to have them. Everybody's scared or something. I generally disagree with the use of nuclear power plants because they produce large amounts of nuclear waste that are harmful to the environment. And I'd have to say: Windmills just look dumb, put simply. Effective, perhaps, but at the same time, do we really want a bunch of windmills lying around at the sides of roads and just occupying space? Sounds pretty silly. They produce the same amount of energy, and don't harm the environment. |
|||
Crashman Grizzo  Since: 12-26-05 From: Maine Last post: 6331 days Last view: 6331 days |
| ||
| So many good ideas here. Basic infrastructure build up, a low tax trade market and stable political environments are the keys to long lasting development and economic growth, and im damn near quoting my college economics book here. Poorer nations need basic utilities (electricity, water, food and information), along with developing trade to bring in loose funds. Stable politics invited people to set down and build lasting comunities and or businesses and for foriegn investors to be interested in local oportunities (Shifts in the tax structure or whatever).
The middle east has long been plagued by fratracidal feuding of religous and racial sects; the shiites against the sunis, the arabs against the isrealites against the palastinians, etc. That, and lets not forget foilks, that THEY ALL LIVE IN THE FRIGGIN DESERT! Not a big help to them....... |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| The problem, ROM, is that nuclear is not a panacea to our energy problems. Waste disposal is a huge problem, and the costs really are enormous. As I say, even Britain's having to fork over a billion pounds a year to keep its nuclear energy plants going.
Then there's safety, which you haven't addressed. If you're giving nuclear plants to countries without rigorous safety laws and strong rule of law and low corruption levels and experience in dealing with nuclear material, you're dramatically increasing the prospect of catastrophic melt-downs. To say nothing of weapons proliferation, and beyond wishful thinking, you don't seem to have explained how you're going to prevent weapons proliferation. And then, how much uranium is there? How much will be needed, especially once China gets its nuclear programme off the ground? And especially if you start putting reactors all over the place? It's another power source with a limited, finite, onetime supply. The alternatives I'd like to see are, (for Australia at least), switching to gas in the short term and moving to as much renewables as we can in the long term as the technology improves. Natural gas is more plentiful and burns cleaner. That's an interim measure, a cleaner burnign source of fossil fuel hydrocarbons. The good thing is, there's a certain quantity of carbon emissions the planet can handle... we dont have to entirely eliminate carbon emissions, just bring them down to sustainable levels. Renewable energy is viable and continuing to advance. Photovoltaic panels, for example, cost 1/100th of what they did in 1970... how much further would they drop in price if production increased substantially and economies of scale were taken advantage of? If, for example, the level of spending poured into nuclear energy were poured into solar energy and other sources. There's just a couple of technological hurdles to be overcome. These are the problems of energy storage and variable supply. See, energy grids require a steady inflow of energy, whereas most renewables (solar, wind, geothermal, tidal) supply variable amounts, 70%-90% of which is wasted becuase the grids, built for fixed supplies, cant handle it. Thus we need something that can store the excess energy and regularise the supply--hydrogen fuel cells, which are basically batteries, are the key technology here. And they're not far-off. Once they're viable, we will see a massive improvement in the efficiency of variable renewable energy sources. Hell, some Canadian company, with only 4.5 million dollars raised mostly from the community, has managed to come up with a way to produce hydrogen from water, steel and solar power. The other issue is how much renewables vary in their supply levels. Solar and wind, especially, are intermittent, as are tides and biofuel burning to some extent. Storage can solve some of the problem, but we also need to start thinking differnetly about energy supplies. See, conventional power supply revolves around a big central source and a grid... but renewables can be distributed. We might not be able to tell when it's going to be sunny in a specific place, but we have plenty of climate data, as well as tide charts, that allow averages to be projected. By thinking in the aggreggate and using a mixture of many different supplies, we can minimise variation and, again, massively increase efficiency with these energy sources. An article explaining how a combination of distributed renewable sources could provide over half of Britain's present energy needs. "If you plan the right mix, renewable and intermittent technologies can even be made to match real-time electricity demand patterns. This reduces the need for backup, and makes renewables a serious alternative to conventional power sources." Now look, I'm not entirely against nuclear energy... the Chinese are doing some interesting things with inherently safe, mass-producable pebble-bed reactors... but there's still the problems of waste disposal and cost. The technology needs to improve before it can be considered a good option to go expanding all over the world. And since we're on the subject of the third world, ROM. Nuclear power is big and central, they require extensive grids and the maintainance of substations and so forth. Many third world nations are not in a position to provide this, nor are they in a position to undertake the level of market intervention required to keep them economically viable. Many isolated, regional areas have shitty electricity grids, or they're not even connected. Building nuclear power plants will solve none of this. In fact, various renewable energy sources are the ideal power solution for third world areas that have poor or intermittent connections to existing grids. Throw down a couple of windmills or solar plants in an area, and they've got power much closer to home, and therefore more reliable. (edited by Arwon on 01-22-06 03:43 AM) |
| Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Non-Proliferation Issues |
| |
