Exactly how did nuclear power generation killed Silkwood?, if I may ask.
Very sad news. Official announcement out, they found the two missing workers.
Whoops, that was a Japanese page. Sorry.
Mixed stories about this, but clearly nobody checked the turbine room of #4 reactor till the 30th.
Nope, that truly then discredits you irreparably then, just by the rapid fire straw men that he uses you should be ashamed that he is on your side.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interact/silkwood.html
Silkwood was investigating safety problems at her plant and somebody tried to poison her with plutonium. She was a technician making fuel pellets for nuclear reactors. While she had high levels, she died in a car accident with high levels of Quaaludes in her system. If she took them voluntarily to cope with the strain of being poisoned it was a foreseeable cause of her death, and a jury agreed, a judge disagreed and the company eventually settled for over a million dollars.
No, you I am ashamed of. You just won’t stop masturbating in public to your nuclear power porn. It makes you blind. Blind to the dangers of nuclear radiation! And with pubes all over your hands, nobody wants you in on the rescue effort. Sticky, hairy hands do not suit the myopic.
I will put a sign on my front lawn saying I would like more wind and solar in my neighborhood if you will put a sign on your front lawn saying that you want another nuke plant nearby. And that you masturbate like a motherfuck. I will not return to semi-serious commentary until the morrow. My movements are glowing! (Dear Mods, I am not posting drunk or high.)
Meh, auto-porn. I think you need look at the meaning of projection.
I think that if he’s not drunk or using heavy drugs, he needs to up the voltage…
-XT
So in other words, her death was not caused by a nuclear reactor incident.
Thanks for clearing that up.
That’s not true, in 2008 California generated 3,977 GwH from in-state coal. (See excel file from here, your site doesn’t say anything about coal).
California is also an importer of electricity, unable to generate enough for their own needs. Over a fifth of their energy is imported, with almost half of that being coal generated.
Interesting. I did not know that. This thread still isn’t about coal.
Yes it is. Because without nuclear we need coal.
Solar and wind can’t make up the difference. Say it with me, “Solar and wind can’t make up the difference.”
Solar and wind: 30% (giving the pie-in-the-sky estimation the benefit of the doubt)
Nuclear: 20% (assuming today’s percentage)
???: 50%
What fills in the gap? It’s coal you silly piece of shit.
And natural gas.
But I think it’s silly to expect that the nation/world look at ending usage of/prevent expansion of nuclear power without considering the repercussions it will have.
I don’t even think the most strident of nuclear power supporters would want nuclear plants around just for fun if the energy wasn’t needed because we came up with some miracle power source that met all our needs.
As it is with any source of power for our modern society, we have to weight the benefits, risks and costs.
“Coal and wind can’t make up the difference.” There, I said it. But it isn’t true. They can’t make it up today, but they can when they are built.
I fundamentally reject that there is not enough wind or solar power potential to power the entire world’s needs. It needs to be developed and is being developed.
Confusing ‘needs’ with ‘desires’ is a common failing.
I’m sure there’s an error in that post…
Oh yeah, most definitely. If we invent the efficient, cost-effective solar cell that can do it, scrap every nuclear plant on the planet. But hoping we will invent it isn’t something that should preclude taking actions based on today’s abilities.
Yeah, I forgot natural gas. Which burns cleaner than coal, but still produces a fair amount of carbon.
Yes, but rest assured there will be no errors in building or running nuclear plants. Because they are not subject to human error.
[QUOTE=The Second Stone]
I fundamentally reject that there is not enough wind or solar power potential to power the entire world’s needs. It needs to be developed and is being developed.
[/QUOTE]
No one said there isn’t enough wind or solar POTENTIAL. :rolleyes: What they are saying is that from an economic and manufacturing perspective it’s impossible given the state of the art in technology to get even a fraction of our total energy from both sources combined. Why this is so hard for you and others to grasp is beyond me. The math seems pretty simple to me. Take the total amount of electrical energy generated per year in a country like the US. Figure out what the realistic amount of power that a single wind generator or solar panel can produce on average. From that, extrapolate the number of wind turbines and solar panels you’d need to generate whatever fraction of our total energy you want to shoot for. Figure out what the price per turbine or per solar panel is. Do the math. Leave aside what it would cost in infrastructure, what changes to the grid you might need, costs for maintenance and other associated costs, and just figure out how many wind turbines and solar panels you’d need and what the realistic price per turbine or panel is. Show the math.
And yet, when these discussions come up, inevitably the pro-wind/solar side never wants to talk real numbers for some reason. They don’t want to talk about what it would ACTUALLY take to build all this stuff on large scales. Why is that, do you suppose? If this was all a slam dunk, as you and others on your side seem to indicate, why don’t they ever want to talk about the hard numbers?
Well, probably because we are talking about having to build something like 100k+ wind turbines at 2-10 million dollars apiece (not counting infrastructure costs or any of that other stuff), and building hundreds of square miles of solar panels, and that even if you could get people to ALLOW you to build all that stuff where it’s optimal to do so, and even if you could FIND all the raw materials needed to build it all on those scales, how would you pay for it???
-XT
Coal-fired power plants provide Los Angeles with 44 percent of its energy. In March 2010, the L.A. Department of Water and Power (DWP) Board of Commissioners unanimously approved Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s initiative that will create green jobs and harness the area’s ample sunlight. The solar power generation will wean the city off of coal. The City Council approved the measure in March 2010 and will work to eliminate electricity produced by coal by 2020.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=California_and_coal#cite_note-22