Make your opinions informed opinions.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 3:39 am

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 7:54 am

Ahh, KQED. I listen to their radio often.

You know what's cheaper than nuclear, say? Solar. Wind power. Power storage reservoirs. Batteries. Sure it's safer than coal and three mile island didn't kill anyone. But our government isn't the French government. I don't trust them to let people handle nuclear material for profit.

I can't stop the coal plants, but I can stop new nuclear plants.

*sigh*

-Crissa

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 8:14 am

Some of the issues are pretty complicated and a Yes/No answer is incapable of giving a complete picture. Other questions there are really simple. The "best arguments" against letting gay people marry or reforming the electoral college are pretty frickin weak.

Still, it's a reasonable format. I think people should familiarize themselves with the counter arguments of all of the positions that they take.

-Username17

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 11:40 am

Crissa wrote:Ahh, KQED. I listen to their radio often.

You know what's cheaper than nuclear, say? Solar. Wind power. Power storage reservoirs. Batteries. Sure it's safer than coal and three mile island didn't kill anyone. But our government isn't the French government. I don't trust them to let people handle nuclear material for profit.

The are scientific studies from reputable sources, as well as government sponsored work that may indicate otherwise. It certainly is not a black and white issue. For example, the government studies rely on you operating in europe and thus having access to french expertise and engineering firms.

But anyway, I'm not even sure how you can compare nuclear power to 'batteries'

That doesn't even make sense.

Still, it's a reasonable format. I think people should familiarize themselves with the counter arguments of all of the positions that they take.

I like the format, but in places it comes off as kinda bizarre. I'm not actively familiar with the US so taking the topic at the top of the page has these two statements in it and taking all statements at face value:

ot only does the repository avoid active fault lines,

The site lies near a web of earthquake faults that is expected to experience quakes of up to 6.5 on the Richter scale.

So does it or does it not avoid active fault lines?

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 4:28 pm

It’s an interesting site (I went for the nuclear option) but some of the arguments are questionable. For example; it uses a simpler linear technology argument suggesting that Chernobyl which happened after Three Mile Island shows how the “industry” can not react over time. But USSR nuclear technology did not redesign itself after the Three Mile Island incident in the United States; the technology was simpler and the safeguards were fewer. On the opposite side, it’s not that the French are better; it is that the designs are getting safer.

Yes there is still the problem of waste. (Note that not being on a fault line is not the same as not being near a fault line. You don’t get cut in half but you do get the shakes.) We could always send it all to the moon.

OK, strike that; definitely not a good idea.

Costs of nuclear power $0.20 –$0.30 per kilowatt hour.

(Most web sites for solar power are for small scale home use, not about large scale solar farms, so I don’t know the long term cost for that power off hand. On the other hand, we will still need energy for night time use. Low levels of nuclear power plants – especially the safer models which yield less overall power – could easily fill the bill.)

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 4:52 pm

I read through the health care debate. Some really good points on both sides. Still not sure where I stand, but I'm leaning toward single-payer.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:58 pm

tzor wrote: (Note that not being on a fault line is not the same as not being near a fault line. You don’t get cut in half but you do get the shakes.) )

The site doesn't say it's on a fault line - it says it 'avoids' faultlines.

Then it says it doesn't.

This is very confusing to me.

Costs of nuclear power $0.20 –$0.30 per kilowatt hour.

This is a difficult area as the costs of decommissioning, construction and backup power generation have not been really established.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=IBC ... q=&f=false

http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2003-1 ... 3-080F.PDF

Are good places to start!

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 7:42 pm

Not being near an active fault line is not the same thing as not being able to expect an earthquake of rating 5 or more in the next 200 years. There are a lot of places on dormant fault lines that will eventually get quakes even if they don't have any right now. Like, much of the American East Coast.

-Username17

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 8:30 pm

The second largest quake in US history happened in Missouri.

cthulhu wrote:The are scientific studies from reputable sources, as well as government sponsored work that may indicate otherwise. It certainly is not a black and white issue. For example, the government studies rely on you operating in europe and thus having access to french expertise and engineering firms.

Which doesn't seem to refute my point so much as support it. So I'm not sure your topic sentence is supported by your conclusion sentence.

For profit industries have terrible records when it comes to damaging their workers, the environment, and the future. While there have been no major accidents at US nuclear plants; none of them have even paid for themselves.

Chernobyl is both a good example of what happens when you don't take safety seriously; and a bad example because it's a first-gen technology which was never used for a commercial power source in western nations exactly because of its drawbacks.

-Crissa

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:46 am

Whatever, check the studies. Significant variance in pricing comes from how backup for renewable is costed too. It's all over the place.

Chernobyl is both a good example of what happens when you don't take safety seriously; and a bad example because it's a first-gen technology which was never used for a commercial power source in western nations exactly because of its drawbacks.

True. Page: 7 of http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... _kuJ4H8K6A

does indicate that in Europe nuclear power as implemented actually has the best health and safety record.