This is kind a classic distinction, rhetoric is the art of persuasion by charm and other means while reason is supposed to have truth standards. But it becomes a little circular when one needs reason to figure out how many repetitions of a phrase in a speech will win over the crowd.
Actually, we can be clear that nuclear power is bad for democracy because of the way it creates conditions for a police state long into the future. The necessity to guard nuclear waste implies that, for example, the Patriot Act, will never be repealed. Things should be dandy for people with nothing to hide, but everybody gets investigated.....
I prefer my reactors aboard submarines quietly assuring other countries that they would not survive a counterstrike. I'm not saying those reactors are safe. They are not. But the mission is quite a bit different than commercial power production which can be done safely using other means.
Actually it does stop getting worse. Think about it. Also, the London Dumping Convention prohibits disposing of nuclear waste at sea so your idea won't work.
Actually, recycling gets you very little more, certainly not hundreds of years. The sea water idea is a bad joke and the molten salt reactor never worked right and had a hugely expensive cleanup cost.
Nice point but uranium is not free because it is subject to the economics of scarcity. A nuclear renascence plant built now will face fuel shortages before it is paid off. Wind, and solar especially will never be subject to that.
You're not kidding. There is only about 80 years of uranium left at the current rate of use. With a nuclear renaissance, most new plants would face a fuel shortage before they are fully paid off. The only low cost path for nuclear power is less and less of it.
An NRC inspector found a guard at Indian Point so fast asleep that it was hard to wake him. Other plants have sleeping guards as well.
And I did not say anything about nuclear war, just that in the case of revolution, Pakistan's nuclear weapons may not be available to the new government. It might make sense to be sure that terrorists will face the fiercest possible resistance regardless of whose territory the power plant happens to be on. The US Navy protects oil tankers, no matter whose they are, after all.
"Terrorists will most likely try to damage a reactor’s support and water-supply systems as well as its control and protection system to cause a heat explosion of the reactor with subsequent demolition of the reactor and the building in which it is located,"
Actually, their most successful attacks involve infiltration. As nuclear power declines, in may be harder and harder to get trustworthy employees or contractors. Not so sure an inside job could be easily prevented.
Slashdot Mirror
This is kind a classic distinction, rhetoric is the art of persuasion by charm and other means while reason is supposed to have truth standards. But it becomes a little circular when one needs reason to figure out how many repetitions of a phrase in a speech will win over the crowd.
Interesting, insightful and informative moderation tags may help in avoiding the worst of the caveman-type reasoning battles on slashdot.
Actually, we can be clear that nuclear power is bad for democracy because of the way it creates conditions for a police state long into the future. The necessity to guard nuclear waste implies that, for example, the Patriot Act, will never be repealed. Things should be dandy for people with nothing to hide, but everybody gets investigated.....
Exactly. Nuclear power is regress not progress for Italy.
No, no fossil fuels.
You might want to read through these articles: http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/michael_dittmar
I prefer my reactors aboard submarines quietly assuring other countries that they would not survive a counterstrike. I'm not saying those reactors are safe. They are not. But the mission is quite a bit different than commercial power production which can be done safely using other means.
Actually it does stop getting worse. Think about it. Also, the London Dumping Convention prohibits disposing of nuclear waste at sea so your idea won't work.
Actually, recycling gets you very little more, certainly not hundreds of years. The sea water idea is a bad joke and the molten salt reactor never worked right and had a hugely expensive cleanup cost.
Nice point but uranium is not free because it is subject to the economics of scarcity. A nuclear renascence plant built now will face fuel shortages before it is paid off. Wind, and solar especially will never be subject to that.
Das voooooosh.
Stupid? I think not. But last I checked, the US was not a whole continent so maybe you should hold back on the 'stupidest' claims.
Yes, that is mentioned in the article.
Since Germany does not mine uranium anymore, perhaps some of that was imported as fuel?
It's mdsolar. Oooooh.
You're not kidding. There is only about 80 years of uranium left at the current rate of use. With a nuclear renaissance, most new plants would face a fuel shortage before they are fully paid off. The only low cost path for nuclear power is less and less of it.
Better recheck your calculations.
I think a first pass at the problem of nuclear waste is to stop producing it. End fission, and at least the problem stops getting worse.
I notice that the submissions I put in that are accepted usually generate quite a lot of interest.
Can't do attitude. Love it.
An NRC inspector found a guard at Indian Point so fast asleep that it was hard to wake him. Other plants have sleeping guards as well.
And I did not say anything about nuclear war, just that in the case of revolution, Pakistan's nuclear weapons may not be available to the new government. It might make sense to be sure that terrorists will face the fiercest possible resistance regardless of whose territory the power plant happens to be on. The US Navy protects oil tankers, no matter whose they are, after all.
According to the report:
"Terrorists will most likely try to damage a reactor’s support and water-supply systems as well as its control and protection system to cause a heat explosion of the reactor with subsequent demolition of the reactor and the building in which it is located,"
Actually, their most successful attacks involve infiltration. As nuclear power declines, in may be harder and harder to get trustworthy employees or contractors. Not so sure an inside job could be easily prevented.
That is not quite true. The DoE conducts simulated assaults on nuclear facilities though it sounds like they are not covering all the bases.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0607/Fukushima-meltdown-could-be-template-for-nuclear-terrorism-study-says
And even then, accidents happen....