Nuclear energy, yes or no and alternatives...

Open talk "Just about anything..." Please respect our forum rules... Political and religeous subjects will be removed.

Moderator: Stany Buyle

Nuclear energy, yes or no and alternatives...

Postby Vincent De Vos » Sat 19 Mar 2011 22:17

The nuclear nightmare in Fukushima :cry: brings nuclear power (again) in discussion...
Are you pro or contra, and why?
Do you see environmental friendly alternatives which can fulfill the boosting need of energy worldwide?

I'm against nuclear energy, Austria f.i. is doing without. Countries without the hydro-electric-power Austria has have perhaps plenty of sun or wind, or both, or all three of them...
Those days when I was a youngster all roofs had an antenna to watch television, nobody cared about the awfull sight in a city with all those antennas because we wanted to watch televison. Why no little windmill on everybody's roof? It won't provide all the nergy we need, but it will do something...
Passioned by beautiful pictures, not a very active photographer though...

PS I use google translate a lot to write better English. So, if mistake, I's google, not me. ;)
Vincent De Vos
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2008 21:46

Re: Nuclear energy, yes or no and alternatives...

Postby ChristianHandl » Mon 21 Mar 2011 21:35

Hello !

I am against nuclear energy, mainly because it is not acceptable to leave radioactive waste to the next 100 Generations. Waste which can not be stored properly. In Germany a radioactive waste repository in a salt dome, which was believed to be save for many 100 years, has collapsed partly and the radioactive waste had to be brought out. The risk now of a power plant is one thing, we take the energy, benefit from it, so we have to deal with the risk. But to extend this risk to the next xxx generations is not good. I live in Austria, but we have mainly a lot of water power plants, some wind and a small amount of solar energy. But we do have nuclear power in Austria via Import of electrical energy. I have a supplier which is "green", so no contracts with nuclear power companies. This does cost a little more. Alternatives are not that easy. The best energy are "Negawatts". Energy you do not use. So more ore less it is a also a matter of abstinence. Certainly you can do alot with heating hot water with thermal solar panels, insulating houses, keeping the temperature normal in your room in Winter (no overheating). Buying new energy efficient stuff,.... But still electrical consumption is going up. More computers, smartphones, big flat TV´s, you name it. I am experimenting at the moment with LED Lightning. You can save a few 100 Wh a day, for me it is a compensation to my 6 core intel monster computer. But I am a professional photographer. I can not work panoramic images of D3X files from a small notebook - I would have to drink a lot of coffee.
To quote " the unconvinient truth" might be, that we all have to be less power hungry, to abandon some of our luxuries. But are we willing to do this? I doubt this from my own experience. But I do see alternatives to nuclear power, mainly in smaller power plants at rivers, wind energy, solar energy, a mix of all plus "Negawatts". That would mean decentralising the energy supply, and that is not very popular for politicians and big companies (they lose influence and power).
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri 8 May 2009 13:35

Re: Nuclear energy, yes or no and alternatives...

Postby Roland-BE » Tue 22 Mar 2011 12:33

I'm against, but the voice of the people who are against won't bring anything. It's too late. Homo sapiens sapiens is in general a very stupid predator creature which will exterminate itself within a very short time from now. Materialism, religion and over-population are to my opinion the main reasons which will lead us to extermination.
So, let's enjoy life as much as possible for our short time left.
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed 24 Sep 2008 19:20

I hope I am wrong, but...

Postby ADeVos » Thu 31 Mar 2011 11:40

... I fear that the Fukushima nuclear disaster will affect the whole world very badly within a year. According to what I read they can't stop the radiation coming out and floating in the sea... While sea is the origin of life and the base of the food-chain.. :cry:
Fukushime looks like a much bigger disaster than Tchernobyl to me, also because it's just next to the ocean...
I sincerely hope I thik wrong, but I'm very afraid for what can come...
Not the eartquake or tsunami are the reason for this drama, because these were there all the time, but idiocy of mankind, wrong thinking politicians and the addiction to money... What an incredible insane i-d-i-o-t builds a nuclear plant in a region that has been hit badly twice by tsunami and earthquakes some decades ago? :o
From wikipedia:
Tsunamis in 1896 and 1933 that struck the northeast coast of Japan around Sanriku killed thousands of people. The one on June 15, 1896 killed 27,120 people in Iwate Prefecture and other areas and occurred after a large earthquake at sea. Fishermen who had been out at sea didn’t eve notice the tsunami when it slipped under their boats. When they returned home they found their villages destroyed and their family members dead or disappeared. There was little warning. The other one was produced by the Sanriku Offshore Earthquake on March 3, 1933, which measured 8.1 on the Richter scale. Most of the 3,008 dead and many of the 7,479 injured were victims of the tsunami.
Greetings from Belgium
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun 16 Nov 2008 18:55

Return to Open talk "Just about anything..."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest