It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

First Germany, now Belgium: Nuclear energy to be phased out by 2015

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Off_The_Street
 


Bah! You're trying to win the argument by comparasions, not by intrinsic value. "Nuclear power isn't great, but it's far better than 'xxx' choice". Help me out here fellow philosophers, can this not be considered a logical fallacy?

Why not take it terms of "It has this many cons and disadvantages attached and therefore should be disqualified as a valid choice", regardless of what people are presently using. Petroleum has it's own problems, and can be disqualified on it's own cons and disadvantages. Why do we say "at least it's better than 'xxx'" instead of saying "Solar and wave power are harmless, so let's use that".

Where there is undeniable risk, and risk at a fall-out scale such as we're seeing at Fukishima, such as we've seen at Cherynobyl, such as we could potentially see at a third of the reactors in the US (approx 36 - 37) in a similar scale earthquake - why tempt fate? Why be this stupid when we have the potential for so, so many more pro-active solutions to our energy requirements? Why not choose the best ten solutions and abandon the rest? Why do we persist in defending the status-quo when the road to change is open, the means are known, and so many decent people object to the industry based on valid, apparant, and ongoing concerns?

Are some of you even aware there is an eleven-hundred page thread following the Fukishima disaster on this site? Of course you are. Turning a blind eye to the contents of the Japan forum, or would you rather stare at your nuclear union paystubs? - well it makes me wonder.

Don't call any soul a "luddite" when your technology is proving itself dangerous, extremely worrysome, capable of destroying the breadbaskets and food supplies of the world, and is resulting in many deaths, many mutated survivors, and so much suffering. Please don't keep turning a blind eye to preventable disasters in the "hope" that things won't go wrong again. A solidarity among citizens against this technological nonmsense is in order, and I'll bet, years from now, after a few more disasters, you'd well agree and wish you had 20/20 hindsight.
edit on 6-11-2011 by Northwarden because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden
reply to post by Off_The_Street
 


Bah! You're trying to win the argument by comparasions, not by intrinsic value. "Nuclear power isn't great, but it's far better than 'xxx' choice". Help me out here fellow philosophers, can this not be considered a logical fallacy?


no it is not - comparison with othe forms of energy is perfectly valid.


Why not take it terms of "It has this many cons and disadvantages attached and therefore should be disqualified as a valid choice", regardless of what people are presently using. Petroleum has it's own problems, and can be disqualified on it's own cons and disadvantages. Why do we say "at least it's better than 'xxx'" instead of saying "Solar and wave power are harmless, so let's use that".


Because there is nothing that is harmless.

Ever seen the pollution that comes from making aluminium or steel to make that wave power machine?

"Harmless" only comes with pre-human evolution - everything after that has a downside.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Northwarden
 




Bah! You're trying to win the argument by comparasions, not by intrinsic value. "Nuclear power isn't great, but it's far better than 'xxx' choice". Help me out here fellow philosophers, can this not be considered a logical fallacy?


No, actually the opposite is true - comparison by some "intrinsic value" is fallacious.



Why be this stupid when we have the potential for so, so many more pro-active solutions to our energy requirements?


What solutions are you talking about? Renewables alone wont cut it.



Why not choose the best ten solutions and abandon the rest?


Why not simply choose the best solution? LFTR



Don't call any soul a "luddite" when your technology is proving itself dangerous, extremely worrysome, capable of destroying the breadbaskets and food supplies of the world, and is resulting in many deaths, many mutated survivors, and so much suffering.


You are overexaggerating the negative effects of nuclear power. There were very few deaths and little suffering.

What if our ancestors stopped using fire after the first house with people inside burned down? Dont demonise the whole field of nuclear energy for the failure of a 40 year old reactor and power plant design. That is a logical fallacy.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



Because there is nothing that is harmless.

Ever seen the pollution that comes from making aluminium or steel to make that wave power machine?

"Harmless" only comes with pre-human evolution - everything after that has a downside.


Okay, fair enough, nothing we do that requires industry methods is "harmless" to our environment. I could say "Yes, but, it's less harmless than ... 'xxx' ... " and fall into the same thing I'm upset about, which is making comparasions between elements instead of measuring them on their own intrinsic worth. Star for you.

That being said, the proportion of damage is decidedly less ... I mean, once a solar panal is constructed it keeps providing power until the sky turns dark or the material system is rendered non-functional. Why are commercial solar panels capped at 19% efficiency, if not to protect other energy industries from "unrealistic" advantages? Based on what we could put into effect in regards to solar power : crystals and prisms amplifying energy, rock and dark colours to absorb energy, and other advents : we could be doing a lot more to be turning kilowatts into megawatts. Yet the industry is downplayed. Through shills of other energy providers, through mis-interpreted, even smudged statistics, and over-all through the simple, political reason of keeping uranium, thorium, and plutonium resource collector/seller corporations in viable economy compared to mobbed outrages. It's bad science to keep poisoning populaces.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


And you, I barely have the patience to answer your post. "Renewables won't cut what"? - Have you no vision or sense of ingenuity? Are you even remotely suggesting that we need nuclear power to survive as humans, or even coal? Are you suggesting that we need millions upon millions of megawatts to survive as a species, and could not adapt to a much more conservative lifestyle without the industry excesses, and the money-driven mania that makes for the ugly neon distraction we call cities? Please. Our ancestors survived on much, much less, and did so for thousands of years.

In short, you're spoiled rotten, and don't know when to say "enough", only how to say "More, more"!
edit on 6-11-2011 by Northwarden because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Northwarden
 


AFAIK the highest efficiency in current production is actually 21% from Sunpower

the 1st article linked to above notes that they can achieve 23%, but at a cost that makes it uneconomic except for limited applications such as aircraft and cars, where cost is less of an issue. So they "de-engineered" their highest efficiency versions to achieve workable manufacturing economics. The 2nd link (wiki) mentions a 24% efficient installation.

This shows that solar efficiency is capped by inability to economically produce any experimental designs that might have higher efficiency. It is not a trivial task to take something out of the laboratory and manufacture it in commercial numbers when everything about it is new - new materials, new physics (comparatively speaking), new processes, etc.



edit on 6-11-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Northwarden
 


Yes, if you advocate that we should live as our ancestors, consider me spoilen, and I will consider you a naive luddite so we are even. What are you even doing on the internet? My goal is not just to merely "survive".

I dont deny that there is some energy waste that can be fixed, but it will not be enough by far. The energy reduction you advocate will inevitably result in substantial decrease of quality of life for billions of people, or/and a lot of death. That is unacceptable. That is far worse result than any nuclear meltdown can be, so it also kind of defeats the point, doesnt it?



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TechUnique
This is something that has been long overdue! If we learn anything from the Chernobyl disaster and the Fukushima incident then it should be this..


Except that Chernobyl could have been easily prevented and Germany doesn't sit on any fault lines, so a Chernobyl or Fukushima is impossible there.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden
Are you suggesting that we need millions upon millions of megawatts to survive as a species, and could not adapt to a much more conservative lifestyle without the industry excesses, and the money-driven mania that makes for the ugly neon distraction we call cities?


Ah, we've reached the thought that lies deep down in the hearts of everyone who opposes nuclear power.

"Do we really need electricity? It's not as if it's the basis of modern society or anything. I say we were better off in the dark ages! Who needs clothing, shelter, heating, food, medicine, entertainment, and lighting for their homes when there's a ridiculously small chance that we might get hurt! Let the poor suffer and die, just like the good old days!"

Why does the so called "Green movement" want human society to start regressing? Why are you using fear and misinformation to wage war against technology?
edit on 6-11-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


You're advocating "quality of life" on the basis that there are no other alternatives, which is simply not the case. It's not my aim to be a luddite, on a personal front : there's plenty to technology that can be put to good use, and I love many a scientific development, when they are capably and responsibly applied. It's not "one or the other" here. Point is, why not do with less until we can handle the "more", then the "more" will be helpful not only to a few, but to everybody who partakes? I sure wish it worked that way. It certainly could work that way, if enough agreed.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


Are you missing my post-earlier-this thread about quantum power existing, being ready for production, and being turned down by the PM of my country for political reasons? That option meant free energy for everybody on the grid. Are you listening to the other side????

Am I saying I'm "against electricity"? No idiot, I'm not. (Forgive me there mods, it's a tough point on my patience).
edit on 6-11-2011 by Northwarden because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden
It's not "one or the other" here.


Yes it is. Modern industrial agriculture would collapse if we gave up nuclear power and fossil fuels and converted entirely to wind and solar.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden
reply to post by Nosred
 


Are you missing my post-earlier-this thread about quantum power existing, being ready for production, and being turned down by the PM of my country for political reasons? That option meant free energy for everybody on the grid. Are you listening to the other side????


I went to the thread you linked and its only source linked me to a non-existing website. Hmmm, not very reliable I'd say.


Am I saying I'm "against electricity"?


Yes, yes you are. Wind and solar are not reliable or efficient sources of power. The only options are nuclear or fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are environmentally unfriendly and dangerous.

You're saying we should just "make do" with less electricity, which is by all standards ridiculous. The human race should not have to settle or "make do" with society regressing.


N o idiot, I'm not. (Forgive me there mods, it's a tough point on my patience).


Ad hominem much?

Edit: You're telling us we should just settle for having less electricity. Electricity. The one thing that has contributed more to economic prosperity, health care, human rights, education, and standards of living than anything else in recorded history since the invention of agriculture. Forgive me for thinking that's a bit insane.
edit on 6-11-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


More Utter B.S.

We could fly across Canada, the US, and Mexico with Blueberry, Raspberry, And Strawberry seeds by aerial drops and seed every sqare acre with organic seeds, enough to feed everybody, and for free (painful for some reason)? We can grow a million pounds of food per year on three acres, proven. Use your head, and stop hiding behind what you think is delimiting.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden
reply to post by Nosred
 


More Utter B.S.

We could fly across Canada, the US, and Mexico with Blueberry, Raspberry, And Strawberry seeds by aerial drops and seed every sqare acre with organic seeds, enough to feed everybody, and for free (painful for some reason)? We can grow a million pounds of food per year on three acres, proven. Use your head, and stop hiding behind what you think is delimiting.


Have fun flying your planes without any electricity.


Edit: Also from an agricultural standpoint, that's a ridiculous notion. Learn some more about farming before you go suggesting insane things like this.

Unless you're suggesting humanity regress back to hunter-gatherer society?


Agriculture is the very foundation of human civilization.
edit on 6-11-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



Edit: Also have fun growing blueberries, raspberries, and strawberries in Alaska.
edit on 6-11-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


Since last summer, it's not actually surprisng that the link is down on a controversial issue. Consider it similar to current news in the sense that "things happen", and links get broken. The 113 stars and many responders should be proof enough to you that the event occurred. That leaves only this worthwhile answering from your post :


Yes, yes you are. Wind and solar are not reliable or efficient sources of power.


Yes, it generates less power than nuclear, yes, it takes more ingenuity than nuclear to integrate into society, but it avoids situations like this : mostly pictures, please see what you're not aware of in your nuclear advocacy.

www.boredpanda.com...
www.pixelpress.org...
www.boston.com...
news.nationalgeographic.com...
inmotion.magnumphotos.com...
www.businessinsider.com...
totallycoolpix.com...
englishrussia.com...
news.bbc.co.uk...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ya, go nuclear. That's it.
edit on 6-11-2011 by Northwarden because: typos



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden Bah! You're trying to win the argument by comparasions, not by intrinsic value. "Nuclear power isn't great, but it's far better than 'xxx' choice". Help me out here fellow philosophers, can this not be considered a logical fallacy?


Perhaps I have discerned the root of our disagreement; you are a self-described philosopher; I am an old broken-down, soon-to-retire engineer with a few years experience in aerospace and a few more working in the Systems Engineering department of a now defunct PV house (Solavolt International in Phoenix AZ).

I'm not the least interested in logic-chopping nor am I a shill for the nuclear energy business (my only nuclear background was as a sailor on a nuclear-powered boat).

But most of us who are actually working of problems like this tend to think in terms of cost-effectiveness; i.e., what will get us the biggest bang for our buck, where "bang" means the cheapest, most reliable, longest lasting, and, yes, safest solution.

I don't think anyone here is proposing that nuclear energy has no problems or that there is no potential for a disaster. However, most disasters can be ameliorated by better designs (as contrasted the the insanely unsafe designs of the Soviet reactors thirty years ago); safer basing (such as our local Palo Verde power plant, one of the largest in the United States, west of Phoenix); and constant increases in quality and safety, as our Japanese colleagues do so well with their kaizen approach to manufacturing.




posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


In the north you grow black walnuts, cranberries, and edible mosses. oh, are you aware that you can eat bullrushes and wild danelion leaves? Sorry, that could be earth-shaking news to you. You sound a little bit too "domesticated" for the awareness, so, sorry for the shock to your system.

Once again, use your head. There's a lot of land we could be using for agriculture without harming the environment.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Off_The_Street
 


Decent post, and thanks for the back to some sanity here.
Some people here, apparantly, you should not be speaking for so soundly, and indeed do believe that it's 'nuclear or bust' for our human race! Amazing but true.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


You seal them in clay, throw in some triple-12 fertilizer, drop them everywhere and you got a crop. The roots shoot down into the soil, and "hey, it works".

Check it for radiation from your flipping industry, and you've got enough to feed to masses - gather it yourself, just like strawberry farms! What's the big fat objection here? You don't like free food? I like free food, my neighbours like free food. You don't like free food? I say you got the problem.
edit on 6-11-2011 by Northwarden because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join