user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Newest Ballots
Newest Blogs
Private Ballots
Joke Ballots
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
It seems like the most feasible alternative at the moment. Yet many environmentalists oppose this as well?
*contrIbution
Not really an alternative. It cannot suply energy directly to individual vehicles. Would be helpful in some cases to generate electricity but that's about it methinks.
seamus- but you do support the idea of nuclear energy for electrical generation, as a means of combating climate change?
We should have more nuclear plants to help save the environment?
It is the best choice we have at the moment.
seamus: most pollution isn't generated by cars, it's generated by coal and diesel power plants for producing electricity.
^agreed
Socrates, I dont oppose the construction of nuclear plants where they are really needed. I'm a bit concerned about the way nuclear waste is treated though. No point having safe plants if the waste is dumped in the watercourses, forests, etc.
I also fear energetic purposes may be the perfect execuse "rogue nations" are looking for to develop nuclear weapons.
Nobody has the balls to use a nuclear weapon any more. Mutual annihilation means that WMD such as nukes are largely pointless. And its not as if you can develop them in secret, look at Iran!
Nuclear energy is the safest solution for our planet. Provided that people don't decide to play with the saftey measures, yes Chrenobyl we mean you!
Electric cars and presumably planes would be relitavely easy to develop.
The only concern is the waste by products. But if we were using them as standard, I'm sure that a cost effective way of launching them into space and away from the earth would rear its head quite quickly.
But assuming that global warming is the product of human actions, the issue of nuclear waste is a small issue compared to the proposed idea that the entire world may be destroyed because of climate change?
As for rougue states? I'm sure the UN's elegant diplomacy would make sure that they use it for energy uses only.
seamus ^
So seamus, you're recommeding we don't let Mr Burns be in charge of waste management then! lol
Its the only solution at this point, as well as using more wind and solar pawer.
by ABC on Fri May 05, 06 7:07am
[+]
Socrates: I dont think it's a small issue. Quite the contrary.
Now serious, if a state secretly develops a nuclear bomb who will exhert the muscled diplomacy that you seem to fancy so much?
xyriach: there's already too many Mr Burns out there...
I'm hesitent to embrace nuclear until the question of nuclear waste is adequately addressed.
seamus- My last comments were sarcastic. Of course they are real, immediate and evident problems. Unlike global warming, which its causes are still ambiguous.
Cathexis- so instead you support the use of oil and coal as the major energy producers? :o What about your fears of global warming?
Cathexis- surely if Global Warming is as threatening as you say it is, then we must do all we can to save the planet from destruction- even if it means putting up with nuclear waste, while it is a concern, is not as great a concern as Global Warming completely ruining the entire planet?
Nuclear waste is the problem for me.
Are the potential effects of global warming worse than the potential effects of Nuclear waste and accidents?
Nuclear waste remains lethal for 10's of thousands of years. This is a fact. Accidents have happened which have had global effects. This is a fact.
Using fossil fuels is dirty and suffocating in its locality. This is fact. On the global scale we think that there is a chance it increases temperatures. This is a theory
I think Nuke is worse than Fossil Fuels which are obviously worse than renewable sources of energy.
Soc: Not at all. I reject the artificial binary choice and, instead, opt to search for a 'Choice C.'
Embracing a lesser evil to avoid an evil is still embracing an evil. I am not convinced that these are our only two options.
Soc: As an example ...
You can either agree to give me $100 or $1,000.
What? You balk at paying me $100? But surely you agree that it is far better than paying me $1,000?!? 
Cath: we have coal/diesel or nuclear, those are the two realistic possibilities in the near future for expanding our energy supply.
Hydroelectric is limited in it's application and we've about tapped that resource in the US. Geothermal, wind, and solar are all nice, but won't have any major impact on the energy supply in the near future.
So it really is a choice between A or B.
I like the idea of nuclear energy better than I used to, but basically because there aren't any great options for the mass production of electricity. Global warming is a reality, and needs to be dealt with on an international scale.
Refer my earlier comment on solar power.
I believe it was Cath's ballot.
We'd should have gone nuclear long ago for different reasons. The problem is NIMBY.
Cathexis- What do you think should be done instead? What is your proposed option C?
|
|
