Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×



Details

Submitted on
November 25, 2012
Image Size
162 KB
Resolution
900×800
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
783 (1 today)
Favourites
7 (who?)
Comments
26
Downloads
8
×
Nuke Power by almcdermid Nuke Power by almcdermid
We can live without these.

Why Nuclear Power Doesn't Make Sense [link]
It's Prohibitively Expensive
It's Propped Up by Subsidies
It Endangers Workers
It Hurts the Land
It's Unsafe
It’s Vulnerable to Terrorism

Nuclear power: no answer to energy policy in a changing climate [link]
Add a Comment:
 
:iconchemistrymajor690:
ChemistryMajor690 Featured By Owner May 20, 2014  Professional Artist
Oh, and I forgot to add this...

fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net…
Reply
:iconchemistrymajor690:
ChemistryMajor690 Featured By Owner May 20, 2014  Professional Artist
Words cannot even adequately describe my utter disdain for people like you. This is but another example of someone without any formal scientific education looking at the nuclear industry in the late 1900s and accidents like 3-Mile Island/Chernobyl/Fukashima and yelling "A WITCH!!! We have found a witch, may we burn her??" (Monty Python). Nuclear power is only a problem when it is not properly regulated and controlled, and in the case of Fukashima, when absolute retards think they can leave their reactor as-is for 30 years without maintenance and nothing bad will happen because of being vastly out of date. When it is properly controlled, it is no more harmful than any other source of fuel. And before you go on saying "Uh, what about solar, wind, and hydroelectric power?" think of this:

1.) Wind power is much more harmful to the landscape than properly controlled nuclear power, since it (wind power): takes up a very large area of land, generates power depending on the VARIABLE wind speed, kills thousands of migratory birds each year in some places, produces high levels of noise, and generates its own waste in the production of the turbines.

2.) Solar power is only about 20% efficient at converting the sunlight into usable power. This is partly due to the construction of the cells, and partly due to the physics going on in the cells. And solar power is one of the worst waste offenders, as production generates a substantial amount of waste.

3>) Hydroelectric power is somewhat better, in that it generates a fairly constant amount of power, but the trade-off is that when you build a hydroelectric plant you dam-up a river which (as we've all seen over the last 30 years) has a significant impact on various migratory fish species (such as the rainbow trout, steelhead, and redband trout in the Columbia river and its tributaries in Oregon/Washington/Idaho/Montana).

Granted, everything has its drawbacks; finding a solution to the energy crisis involves balancing the pros and cons of each method. But you've gone so far to the extreme that you make nuclear power out to be the Antichrist with statements like:

"It's Prohibitively Expensive (no it isn't; maybe 30 years ago it was)
It's Propped Up by Subsidies (if a subsidy is required to build the plant, but it brings a few hundred jobs to a community, isnt it worth it?)
It Endangers Workers (not really, especially based on mondern safety practices. Any business where manufacturing a product is involved endangers the workers to some extent, but those risks are tightly managed and regulated. I guess we could take away your house, your car, and even your food, since the people who make/grow those things are subjected to risk in their jobs...)
It Hurts the Land (again, only under the crappy regulations of the past, and only when its not properly managed and operated. And mining, expansion of human cities, and various utilities like gas/water/electricity (see above example) harm the land far more.)
It's Unsafe (see above).
It’s Vulnerable to Terrorism (so is the power grid, water system including treatment plants and pipelines (NYC is fed by two main piplines and LA is fed by two main aqueducts), so are airports, shipping port facilities like in NY/LA/San Diego/Seattle/San Francisco, etc.)

Now I'm not saying that nuclear power is the "end-all, be-all" like you may think, but it has far more potential than you give it credit for. Lets look at some of the BENEFITS (for once) to nuclear power:

1.) Far, far, far, far, far, FAR more energy density per unit mass than chemical fuels. The energy of the combustion of a similar molecule of chemical fuel releases only a few eV, whereas a single fission event releases about 200MeV (200 million electron volts) which (do the math) is a MINIMUM of 10 MILLION times the energy per unit mass.

2.) Nuclear power is extremely safe with modern designs. Example: google search the TRIGA reactor at Oregon State University. This is a research reactor (produces no power, only produces enough neutrons for various experiments) which has a design has a negative negative fuel temperature coefficient of reactivity, meaning that as the fuel gets hotter reactivity gets lower. Also, the control rods are regulated by an electromagnet that hovers over the reactor so that, in the case of a power outage, the magnet shuts off and the control rods slam down into place.

3.) Nuclear waste storage is not what it was in the 60s and 70s. The containers used today to transport and store waste undergo everything from tests that set them on fire to (literally) crashing an airplane into them. If the cask leaks....FAIL. Such containers in conjunction with the proposed Yucca Mountain site (which congress should get off its ass and fund) give you a long-term solution.

Granted, FUSION is much more preferable, having substantially lower waste, higher degree of safety (due to the physics of the reactors), and far safer fuels than uranium and plutonium, but that is an entirely different discussion.

All you had to do is say that you don't care for nuclear power for such and such reason. But as soon as you go and make it seem evil and as something that only a rich businessman/politician/lobbyists who like to piss on the common-man would support, you step into MY realm, pal. I say all of this as a freakin CHEMISTRY MAJOR at Oregon State, where they make you take classes like three solid terms of calculus-based physics, physical chemistry (calculus-based physics explaining basic chemical principles, used to be called Theoretical Chemistry), and 6 terms of Integrated Laboratories, one of which involves actual experimentation in the freakin TRIGA NUCLEAR REACTOR listed above.

If you don't have any sort of formal (college) scientific education and degree, you should have no say whatsoever in the debate over whether or not to use or increase the use of nuclear power. The majority of people that make these decisions have had their professional scientific degrees for DECADES and know what the hell they're talking about. Before you go typing your moronic opinion, make sure you know the damn facts.

These 1044 words have been a sugar, physics, and adrenaline fueled response from an actual SCIENTIST.
Reply
:iconalmcdermid:
almcdermid Featured By Owner May 21, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
"Words cannot even adequately describe my utter disdain for people like you"

The feeling is mutual, so piss off.
Reply
:iconchemistrymajor690:
ChemistryMajor690 Featured By Owner May 21, 2014  Professional Artist
Yeah well, in this case, one of us actually has a scientific degree and isn't talking out his ass. And you also proved my point...didn't even try to debate any facts, and I know why: cause you CAN'T, cause you don't know science and you don't know what you're talking about. Get a science degree, and then we'll talk.

tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=f…
Reply
:iconalmcdermid:
almcdermid Featured By Owner May 21, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
If you hadn't started out with "Words cannot even adequately describe my utter disdain for people like you" I might have been willing to here what you have to say. You mention "debate" when it would seem that all you care about is demonstrating why you are correct. And your degree means nothing either -- climate change deniers have science degrees. Plus, why should I be impressed with your degree while you're committing such an obvious logical fallacy--a degree is worth little when one know how to actually think. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument…

"Get a science degree, and then we'll talk." I'm not interested in talking to you, not now anyway. Had you taken a different approach, maybe, but there's not much point in closing the barn door after the horses have fled. Get over yourself bit. You'll be surprised at the results you get.
Reply
:iconchemistrymajor690:
ChemistryMajor690 Featured By Owner May 22, 2014  Professional Artist
You do realize that the problem you have with me, what you say I should and should not have done is exactly what you did? "Get over myself?" I think you need to take your own advice dude. If you actually read what I said, mainly how when you vilify something when you have no real basis and knowledge to do so, that's where the problem comes in. Your like the person that says vaccines are bad cause they have mercury, aluminum phosphate and sodium phosphate and formaldehye; they have no idea of the science behind the vaccine, but the things sound scary and bad an so they think vaccines are bad and anyone who vaccines their kid is a moron. THAT is the attitude I have issue with. When you start out with that attitude, explain why I should do anything else than explain why you are wrong. And a the degree does mean something: it means I know and understand and have been tested by a ACS-evaluated curriculum about my knowledge of the physics/chemistry and engineering of the reactors. I may not have the experience of a PhD who has been running a reactor for 20 years, but at least I understand the science and don't go off half-cocked without knowing what I am talking about.

"Get over yourself a bit, you will be surprised at the results you get." same thing goes to you dude.

Oh, and you still haven't tried to debate the facts. Cause you can't.
Reply
:iconalmcdermid:
almcdermid Featured By Owner May 22, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Reply
:iconchemistrymajor690:
ChemistryMajor690 Featured By Owner May 22, 2014  Professional Artist
And the only fallacy is wasting my time with someone who doesn't even attempt to debate the facts. All you're doing is showing your ignorance and anger at being proven wrong. I'm not saying that nuclear power is without faults, not at all, as I even admitted when comparing fusion/fission, but it is not as harmful and destructive as you make it out to be. It goes back to what I said before "all you had to to was say "I don't like nuke power for such and such reason" and that would have been the end of it". But you made statements before I posted making the same mistakes you claim I make. Before finding fault with me, look at yourself.
Reply
:iconunfailingealge:
UnfailingEalge Featured By Owner Mar 2, 2013  Student
it's better then coal and gas energy.
Reply
:iconalmcdermid:
almcdermid Featured By Owner Mar 5, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
No, it is not. It just presents a different set of negatives that are ultimately more deadly, and more costly. Plus, it irresponsibly passes on the problem of its toxic waste on to future generations. It symbolizes the apex of human stupidity and arrogance.
Reply
Add a Comment: