• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Finland pledges to become carbon neutral by 2035

PoS said:
Congratulations on your ignorance then.


Yet they are pragmatic enough to know that tech's limitations.


Which is why China is now #2 in the world economy and is poised to get ahead, thanks to attitudes of people like you. Well done.



LOL then why are so many other countries like China, Russia, UAE and Finland are all gearing up for more advanced nuclear power plants? It's clear you have no idea what youre talking about.
Click to expand...

As I said, the days of large scale high capital investment power plants are coming to a close.

Why would anyone spend nine years and over $20 billion to build a plant that still isn’t running, when they will soon be able to build massive solar and wind arrays for far less cost, hook them up to battery farms and have all the power they need, whenever they want it?

The industry is asking itself that question, particularly in the light of the spectacular financial success of the Hornsdale wind battery farm that Tesla built in South Australia. That plant has exceeded its most optimistic projections, and will fully pay for itself in three years.

Smaller scale and small scale electric generation and storage balanced on a smart grid is the wave of the future.

And it is rapidly moving from the theoretical to the real.

Which is why the battery companies, wind companies and solar companies all have full order books.

I doubt that the UAE nuclear facility will break even in the next twenty years.
 
longview said:
I know you believe that nuclear waste in an insurmountable problem, but I disagree.
Newer reactors like thorium, will produce much lower volumes of waste, and some designs can used existing waste as fuel.
In the long term (200 years) we likely will no longer need nuclear fission power, but on a shorter time scale,
there will still be large gaps to fill.
Click to expand...

You buy all the BS...

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/defaul.../nuclear_power/thorium-reactors-statement.pdf

Nuclear reactors fueled with thorium and uranium do not provide any clear overall
advantages over reactors fueled with uranium alone.
...
Some people believe that liquid fluoride thorium reactors, which would use a hightemperature liquid fuel made of molten salt, would be significantly safer than currentgeneration reactors. However, such reactors have major flaws. There are serious
safety issues associated with the retention of fission products in the fuel, and it is not
clear these problems can be effectively resolved. Such reactors also present
proliferation and nuclear terrorism risks because they involve the continuous
separation, or “reprocessing,” of the fuel to remove fission products and to efficiently
produce U-233, which is a nuclear weapon-usable material. Moreover, disposal of the
used fuel has turned out to be a major challenge. Stabilization and disposal of the
remains of the very small "Molten Salt Reactor Experiment" that operated at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s has turned into the most technically
challenging cleanup problem that Oak Ridge has faced, and the site has still not been
cleaned up.
 
COTO said:
Horses produce emissions. So does buggy manufacture.

The magic of carbon neutrality is that the Finnish can buy carbon credits from the Third World, get them to shut down industries, and use the credits to pollute all they want. Hence they'll be able to do what they've always done, it will just be more expensive.

Tesla automotive is a good example of the scam. They're a phenomenally unprofitable company, but they've been able to mitigate cash burn by selling billions worth of emissions credits to their competitors (US auto companies) who are stocking up on credits as a hedge against possible future emissions standards. Net reduction in emissions: zero. Net result for the consumer: more expensive cars.

It would be comical if not for the fact that it suppresses growth in the Third World, pumps wealth from the poor to the wealthy, and (if Finland is anything like Canada), causes environmental initiatives that actually do something, such as heavy metal scrubbers, wetlands protection, etc. to get shelved in lieu of CO2-related refits.
Click to expand...

First of all Tesla's sales of emissions credits ARE increasing the number of all electric cars which is after all it's purpose. He is by far the largest seller of electric vehicles. No one is being forced into buying them either. Also they are actually being bought to keep their gas vehicles price down not to make them go up. We subsidize the entire auto industry anyway and at least this is to help insure the future of our auto industry.
Criticism of Tesla selling emission credits proves analysts don't get it - Business Insider
 
Media_Truth said:
You buy all the BS...

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/defaul.../nuclear_power/thorium-reactors-statement.pdf

Nuclear reactors fueled with thorium and uranium do not provide any clear overall
advantages over reactors fueled with uranium alone.
...
Some people believe that liquid fluoride thorium reactors, which would use a hightemperature liquid fuel made of molten salt, would be significantly safer than currentgeneration reactors. However, such reactors have major flaws. There are serious
safety issues associated with the retention of fission products in the fuel, and it is not
clear these problems can be effectively resolved. Such reactors also present
proliferation and nuclear terrorism risks because they involve the continuous
separation, or “reprocessing,” of the fuel to remove fission products and to efficiently
produce U-233, which is a nuclear weapon-usable material. Moreover, disposal of the
used fuel has turned out to be a major challenge. Stabilization and disposal of the
remains of the very small "Molten Salt Reactor Experiment" that operated at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s has turned into the most technically
challenging cleanup problem that Oak Ridge has faced, and the site has still not been
cleaned up.
Click to expand...
An unwillingness to even look at the issues leads to technical stagnation!
 
PoS said:
We may not be ordering it but other countries are, and they're going to beat us with new technology. Look at this thread.

China Now Beating US in Thorium Powerplant Development


You've obviously never heard of anything past Gen 2 nuke plants that were built back in the 60s and 70s. Thanks for proving how clueless you are.
Click to expand...

The world's next major nuclear accident may be in China.
 
longview said:
An unwillingness to even look at the issues leads to technical stagnation!
Click to expand...

We get it... You guys want to throw more money at the most expensive power on the planet. You want to create more government bureaucracy, with an energy source that has more bureaucracy than any other.
 
PoS said:
The deaths from nuclear accidents can be counted using your fingers.
Click to expand...

I normally don't resort to such blatant attacks. But your posts are nothing but LIES! :thumbdown

Chernobyl death toll and Chernobyl disaster death rate

The International Atomic Energy Organization (IAEA) and the World Health Organization published the results of studies conducted according to which the number of deaths from radiation exposure at the time of the Chernobyl accident at the latest counts is approximately 4,000 people.
 
Media_Truth said:
I normally don't resort to such blatant attacks. But your posts are nothing but LIES! :thumbdown

Chernobyl death toll and Chernobyl disaster death rate

The International Atomic Energy Organization (IAEA) and the World Health Organization published the results of studies conducted according to which the number of deaths from radiation exposure at the time of the Chernobyl accident at the latest counts is approximately 4,000 people.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Your own blog reports 56 people died during the explosion and another 28 died as the result of radiation sickness. The so called 4000 deaths are just estimates due to possible indirect causes and not proven. The Soviets sent in more than half a million people in to help clean it up, and another half a million were affected, so even if the number is true it is still minuscule compared to deaths caused by other energy sources.

Deaths per TWH by energy source – NextBigFuture.com

Here is a chart that lists deaths per thousands, and you can see that nuclear is the safest- even moreso than wind and solar.


eDtB1Zd.png
 
Media_Truth said:
We get it... You guys want to throw more money at the most expensive power on the planet. You want to create more government bureaucracy, with an energy source that has more bureaucracy than any other.
Click to expand...
Not at all, but I also do not want to shut the door on any options we might have.
 
PoS said:
The deaths from nuclear accidents can be counted using your fingers.
Click to expand...

I will differ with you on this one.

I'll bet in the old USSR, there were several early death from the Chernobyl incident.

Still, more people to date have died from windmills!
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Denmark is also leading the they in the transition away from fossil fuels.

Denmark's new government raises climate change to highest priority
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, yes.

So what?

They are blessed with a small country and no long haul power transfers. They are blesses with several gigawatts of offshore wind capacity.

There is no one-size-fits-all, and using them is cherry picking.

Are you proud to be a professional Cherry Picker?

I have a high school friend who has a Cherry Orchard.

Would you like a referral?
 
pos said:
wrong. Your own blog reports 56 people died during the explosion and another 28 died as the result of radiation sickness. The so called 4000 deaths are just estimates due to possible indirect causes and not proven. The soviets sent in more than half a million people in to help clean it up, and another half a million were affected, so even if the number is true it is still minuscule compared to deaths caused by other energy sources.

deaths per twh by energy source – nextbigfuture.com

here is a chart that lists deaths per thousands, and you can see that nuclear is the safest- even moreso than wind and solar.


edtb1zd.png
Click to expand...

bs alert!!!
 
longview said:
Not at all, but I also do not want to shut the door on any options we might have.
Click to expand...

You speak one thing, then you contradict yourself. Money, money, money. Bureaucracy, bureaucracy, bureaucracy. That's the facts, and that's what it will take.
 
PoS said:
Cant refute it can you? Figures. If anyone is lying in this forum, its you.
Click to expand...

You just said that you have 28 fingers. Not worth discussing much of anything with you...
 
Media_Truth said:
You just said that you have 28 fingers. Not worth discussing much of anything with you...
Click to expand...

Well thats because you dont use any facts, while I do. You believe in some sort of green fantasy utopia were wind and solar can do anything. Wake up and smell reality because its not gonna happen.
 
Media_Truth said:
You speak one thing, then you contradict yourself. Money, money, money. Bureaucracy, bureaucracy, bureaucracy. That's the facts, and that's what it will take.
Click to expand...
Bureaucracy is what we have with nuclear power, but it doesn't have to be that way.
 
longview said:
Bureaucracy is what we have with nuclear power, but it doesn't have to be that way.
Click to expand...

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima ---> bureaucracy is warranted for this horrific power source. Chernobyl has 1000 sq. mile exclusion zone. Most US power plants are on the East Coast, the Southeast, or Mid East states. Can you imagine the effect of a 1000 sq mile exclusion zone in any of these areas? It would devastate our economy. And despite the rantings of the Nuclear proponents, and terrorism aside, there is no guarantee that two tetonic plates won't shift at the exact location of one of these plants.
 
Media_Truth said:
Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima ---> bureaucracy is warranted for this horrific power source. Chernobyl has 1000 sq. mile exclusion zone. Most US power plants are on the East Coast, the Southeast, or Mid East states. Can you imagine the effect of a 1000 sq mile exclusion zone in any of these areas? It would devastate our economy. And despite the rantings of the Nuclear proponents, and terrorism aside, there is no guarantee that two tetonic plates won't shift at the exact location of one of these plants.
Click to expand...
Believe as you will, but nuclear power could be improved by unifying on one stable design, and replicating that design everywhere.
 
longview said:
Believe as you will, but nuclear power could be improved by unifying on one stable design, and replicating that design everywhere.
Click to expand...

Is that going to stop a tetonic plate shift? Is that going to get rid of nuclear wastes? Is that going to stop terrorism? Translation again - throw more money and more bureaucracy at it.
 
Media_Truth said:
Is that going to stop a tetonic plate shift? Is that going to get rid of nuclear wastes? Is that going to stop terrorism? Translation again - throw more money and more bureaucracy at it.
Click to expand...
We do not have to build plants on active faults, and we will not know the answer to questions never asked.
It will cost money, but the alternative, may be somewhat less desirable.
Right now, we have the energy and the monies to be asking the questions, waiting may mean we make the
same choices, but without the benefit of evaluating the risk factors.
Decisions made is haste and under pressure, are seldom the best decisions!
 
Lord of Planar said:
I will differ with you on this one.

I'll bet in the old USSR, there were several early death from the Chernobyl incident.

Still, more people to date have died from windmills!
Click to expand...

Im sure the Soviets hid some deaths, but in the end, there's been only what? 3-4 major accidents and the total amount of people dying from them is small compared to all other forms of power. I firmly believe that once the world moves forward with Gen 4 powerplants not only will the risks evaporate to nothing, it will solve the world's energy needs until we get a breakthrough in fusion. Green energy is a white elephant.
 
PoS said:
Im sure the Soviets hid some deaths, but in the end, there's been only what? 3-4 major accidents and the total amount of people dying from them is small compared to all other forms of power. I firmly believe that once the world moves forward with Gen 4 powerplants not only will the risks evaporate to nothing, it will solve the world's energy needs until we get a breakthrough in fusion. Green energy is a white elephant.
Click to expand...

Yes.

With all we have learned over the years, I think we need more nuclear plants.

We can build far better and safer plants than in the early years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom