Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Global Warming scientists to environmentalists: only nuclear power can save the planet   (salon.com ) divider line
    More: Ironic, fossil fuels, energy economy, waste disposal, University of Adelaide, nuclear technology, renewable energy, dangerous climate change, Fukushima Daiichi  
•       •       •

6690 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Nov 2013 at 12:19 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



698 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-11-04 11:59:06 PM  
A nuclear war would do a lot to reduce insolation and cut industrial emissions of CO2....
 
2013-11-05 12:01:25 AM  
obvious tag was out back laughing at all those kids, who cant add or multiply, trying to explain how wind and solar will solve everything.

dont get me going on the "we will get hydrogen from water" tards
 
2013-11-05 12:03:07 AM  

abb3w: A nuclear war would do a lot to reduce insolation and cut industrial emissions of CO2....


Hey, I have read studies which would inject large amounts of Canadian sulfer into the stratosphere and fix the whole global warming problem.

Also the "build a lot of things to splash water into the air in the pacific" studies are fascinating.

Basically, we need more CLOUDS.
 
2013-11-05 12:22:18 AM  
I will never understand the taboo that nuclear power has in this country. It's bizarre.
 
2013-11-05 12:22:18 AM  
Actually, nuclear is a very good idea and so is wind and solar augmentation.  Solar on dwellings and offices, nuclear and wind for the grid.  Lots of LEDs.  All we have to do is start rebuilding a beat to snot grid, and adding plastic sewers and fiber while we do it.  Wait, what?  The WPA is on line one?  You mean, some stuff works twice?  Paging Barry.
 
2013-11-05 12:22:46 AM  
I spent a lot time in my career explaining to people that environmental specialist or environmental scientist =/= environmentalist.
Now that I'm back in school, I spend time explaining that environmental science major =/= sustainability studies major.

I DNRTFA, but I suspect the same thing is going on here.
 
2013-11-05 12:24:13 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I will never understand the taboo that nuclear power has in this country. It's bizarre.


Speak to the residents of Fukushima.
 
2013-11-05 12:24:54 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I will never understand the taboo that nuclear power has in this country. It's bizarre.


Three Mile Island!  Hiroshima!  Fukushima!  Umm, and gas, oil and coal, well, that was good enough for grandma!  Cause there was a lot more of it when she was 20.
 
2013-11-05 12:25:17 AM  
I guess three or four more Fukushima type meltdowns will probably kill off humanity, and then the planet will finally be safe..... from us.
 
2013-11-05 12:25:23 AM  
Or we could just go back to polluting at the levels from when I was a kid and cool the planet enough to almost start another ice age. When I was in the 6th grade (1983), 60% of my science class was about teaching us the evils of pollution and how it was blocking the sunlight from getting to us and how it would cause another ice age. So we clean up the pollution...hmmmm seems we are now warming up, odd.
 
2013-11-05 12:25:34 AM  

buzzcut73: I spent a lot time in my career explaining to people that environmental specialist or environmental scientist =/= environmentalist.
Now that I'm back in school, I spend time explaining that environmental science major =/= sustainability studies major.

I DNRTFA, but I suspect the same thing is going on here.


so that school thing is working like gangbusters!
no need to read the article, already know everything.

plus, you do know that fark headlines are off some times... not this time, but still.
pretty sure that nuclear power is still sacrilege to most environmentalists
 
2013-11-05 12:26:15 AM  

namatad: dont get me going on the "we will get hydrogen from water" tards


Sure we'll get hydrogen from water.

What you do, see, is build a nuke plant every fifty miles up the Pacific Coast. Next to every nuke plant build a desalinization plant and next to every desalinization plant build a hydrogen production facility. Then do the Gulf Coast. Then do the East Coast. Then start working your way up the Mississippi and thence outward on the tributaries. In one hundred years you transform energy production and consumption in this country and save the oil for important stuff like plastics.
 
2013-11-05 12:26:17 AM  

tripleseven: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I will never understand the taboo that nuclear power has in this country. It's bizarre.

Speak to the residents of Fukushima.


If only we could find some land in the US that isn't on a coastal fault line...

/why is this "IRONIC"?
 
2013-11-05 12:26:52 AM  
remember nuclear winter?
a touch of above ground testing is all we need to fix everything and , if everything works out perfectly, Godzilla!
 
2013-11-05 12:27:11 AM  
Folks?  There's gonna be risks if we want to keep looking at pictures of cats with funny captions and charging our iPhone G5 e++ rigs, AND driving cars to work.
 
2013-11-05 12:27:22 AM  

tripleseven: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I will never understand the taboo that nuclear power has in this country. It's bizarre.

Speak to the residents of Fukushima.


If you didn't build nuclear plants on active fault lines next to oceans that readily see tsunamis, you might not have that problem.  Most of the plants in the US have seen the last 40 years go pretty damn well, and that's only because we have been using the same plants since the mid-70s and refuse to build the far safer, far more economical, and far more efficient breeder reactors because ... OH NOES PLUTONIUMS!!!
 
2013-11-05 12:27:44 AM  
It's all rods!
 
2013-11-05 12:27:47 AM  
if they'd hurry up and switch to thorium, nuclear power would be fine.
 
2013-11-05 12:28:06 AM  
 Then were farked. Not only is it dangerous as in " a serious accident could alter the course of life on the planet" dangerous but there is an even more limited supply of fuel for it than there is oil.
 
2013-11-05 12:28:53 AM  
Nuclear is over since Fukushima. Plants are shutting down so fast i doubt anyone is thinking of building more.
 
2013-11-05 12:29:22 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I will never understand the taboo that nuclear power has in this country. It's bizarre.


three mile island

nimby

a general lack of science education and zomg nukular waste is toxic FOREVER!!!!! types don't help

/grew up in illinois in a nice little cluster of nuclear power
//i could see dresden from my house
///turned out fine, i think
 
2013-11-05 12:30:23 AM  
The thorium people have been saying this for years.

The problem is that nuclear power becomes dangerous in the hands of incompetent people.
 
2013-11-05 12:30:35 AM  
Yeah, nuclear power which costs shiatTONS OF DIESEL to mine the fuel will certainly be cheaper, mmmhmm
 
2013-11-05 12:30:38 AM  

Old_Chief_Scott: namatad: dont get me going on the "we will get hydrogen from water" tards

Sure we'll get hydrogen from water.

What you do, see, is build a nuke plant every fifty miles up the Pacific Coast. Next to every nuke plant build a desalinization plant and next to every desalinization plant build a hydrogen production facility. Then do the Gulf Coast. Then do the East Coast. Then start working your way up the Mississippi and thence outward on the tributaries. In one hundred years you transform energy production and consumption in this country and save the oil for important stuff like plastics.


Where would we get the fuel for all those reactors?
 
2013-11-05 12:30:39 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I will never understand the taboo that nuclear power has in this country. It's bizarre.


Completely agree. Nuclear power is the solution and there are much safer ways of doing it than what we do right now. Thorium based nuclear reactors would make Three Mile Islands, Chernobyls, and Fukushimas a thing of the past. Yet even the mere mention of the word "nuclear" and then everybody thinks of hazard suits and hair falling out, it's absurd how uneducated people are about this yet have so few qualms about burning coal and petroleum.
 
2013-11-05 12:30:48 AM  
So we trade CO2 emissions for huge piles of radioactive waste. Yay?
 
2013-11-05 12:31:10 AM  
www.therewasnodoubtaboutit.com
 
2013-11-05 12:31:24 AM  

tripleseven: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I will never understand the taboo that nuclear power has in this country. It's bizarre.

Speak to the residents of Fukushima.


strange, fukushima was, to some degree, completely predictable.
farktards over estimated their engineering skillz and completely ignored historical facts about worst case tsunamis.

nuclear power wasnt the problem, building plants in the wrong place is the problem.

This the same problem as people building homes in 100 year flood plains, next door to active volcanos, living in floriduh and being surprised when a hurricane strikes, etc etc etc.

ALL of life has risks. We assume some of them, pretend others dont exist and get completely confused when reality strikes.

Wasnt there an article recently about LA refusing to publish the list of buildings which are not earthquake safe? And yet morons still live there. I can wait for the hand wringing when the big one hits and people die.
YAWN

/yes, I live in chicago and there is always the risk of another tornado hitting the city. MEH.
 
2013-11-05 12:31:35 AM  
But I love burning coal.
 
2013-11-05 12:31:35 AM  

namatad: dont get me going on the "we will get hydrogen from water" tards


There's nothing per se wrong with this - it's of course not a net source of energy, but it's a means of energy transport and storage.
 
2013-11-05 12:31:53 AM  

prjindigo: Yeah, nuclear power which costs shiatTONS OF DIESEL to mine the fuel will certainly be cheaper, mmmhmm


Duh..you power the mines with a nuke plant.
 
2013-11-05 12:32:01 AM  

tripleseven: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I will never understand the taboo that nuclear power has in this country. It's bizarre.

Speak to the residents of Fukushima.


That's really it, isn't it? But if it's really all fear mongering, why does no one say "Tell that to the people of West Virginia" or "Ask the residents of Khakassia" whenever coal or hydroelectric plants are mentioned?

More people died due to the Sayani Shushrnskaya dam disaster than died due to Fukishima, so why is hydroelectric power not demonized along with nuclear?
 
2013-11-05 12:32:25 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I will never understand the taboo that nuclear power has in this country. It's bizarre.


Well, it's mainly not because dealing with nuclear power also is dealing with "free market is great, no regulations needed" businessmen. If nuclear power was done responsibly and carefully by businessman who care just as much about safety of the general public (in plant design, maintenance, and nuclear waste storage or reprocessing the stuff) as they do about their profits, then there would be very few voices except by the most extreme on the left for "no nukes".
 
2013-11-05 12:32:38 AM  

spamdog: But I love burning coal.


I do, too.  Coal stoves are better than any fireplace.  Let me know when they start making more..
 
2013-11-05 12:32:52 AM  

queezyweezel: Where would we get the fuel for all those reactors?


Breeders.
 
2013-11-05 12:33:25 AM  
Nuclear power?  Spare the rod, don't poison the entire Pacific ocean
 
2013-11-05 12:33:41 AM  

TheXerox: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I will never understand the taboo that nuclear power has in this country. It's bizarre.

Completely agree. Nuclear power is the solution and there are much safer ways of doing it than what we do right now. Thorium based nuclear reactors would make Three Mile Islands, Chernobyls, and Fukushimas a thing of the past. Yet even the mere mention of the word "nuclear" and then everybody thinks of hazard suits and hair falling out, it's absurd how uneducated people are about this yet have so few qualms about burning coal and petroleum.


they had to rename NMRI to MRI because the snowflakes freaked out with the word NUCLEAR IN THE TITLE.
LOL
 
2013-11-05 12:33:49 AM  
IIRC, there was an article a few years ago about how one of the founders of Greenpeace advocated nuclear power and was ostracized forever after.  Skimmed TFA but didn't see him mentioned.
 
2013-11-05 12:34:22 AM  

Old_Chief_Scott: queezyweezel: Where would we get the fuel for all those reactors?

Breeders.


You cannot fuel a nuclear reactor with straight couples.
 
2013-11-05 12:34:26 AM  

queezyweezel: Old_Chief_Scott: namatad: dont get me going on the "we will get hydrogen from water" tards

Sure we'll get hydrogen from water.

What you do, see, is build a nuke plant every fifty miles up the Pacific Coast. Next to every nuke plant build a desalinization plant and next to every desalinization plant build a hydrogen production facility. Then do the Gulf Coast. Then do the East Coast. Then start working your way up the Mississippi and thence outward on the tributaries. In one hundred years you transform energy production and consumption in this country and save the oil for important stuff like plastics.

Where would we get the fuel for all those reactors?


You know breeder-type reactors can take the spent fuel rods from conventional type reactors and keep making power with it ad infinitum ... the only slight problem is breeder reactors create plutonium, which is something of a security concern in these post-9/11 times.  Not saying it's right or wrong, but the nuclear fuel supply issue is only concentrating on the standard U-235 reactors and specifically excluding any waste fuel re-processing or breeder reactors.

Our conventional U-235 light-water reactors are just about the most inefficient use of nuclear energy that's ever been created and results in tons of highly irradiated nuclear waste that could be reused and recycled through more efficient processes.
 
2013-11-05 12:34:48 AM  
Many eople against nuclear power are totally in favor of heating their homes by burning wood. The stupid, it burns. Firewood.
 
2013-11-05 12:35:24 AM  

prjindigo: mmmhmm


AIN'T GOT NO GAS IN IT!

sorry
 
2013-11-05 12:35:45 AM  

knbwhite: IIRC, there was an article a few years ago about how one of the founders of Greenpeace advocated nuclear power and was ostracized forever after.  Skimmed TFA but didn't see him mentioned.



found him  http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/11/moore_qa
 
2013-11-05 12:36:03 AM  

DarkSoulNoHope: Well, it's mainly not because dealing with nuclear power also is dealing with "free market is great, no regulations needed" businessmen.


About an hour and a half after we guillotine the last of the greedheads and give their belongings to homeless people, the economy will bounce back and we'll start doing things that are useful, sans the profit motive.  And, btw, before the Neo CON armchair economists chime in, economies   ARE  wealth redistribution.  It's just time to take the cork out of the elephant's ass.
 
2013-11-05 12:36:37 AM  

Sum Dum Gai: namatad: dont get me going on the "we will get hydrogen from water" tards

There's nothing per se wrong with this - it's of course not a net source of energy, but it's a means of energy transport and storage.


UM, the tards think that hydrogen is an energy source. When it isnt. It is a battery. A storage mechanism.
They NEVER talk about where the energy would come from to create the hydrogen. PIXIE DUST!!!!

But try explaining that to them and they get all upset. Screws with their religion. (beliefs without facts)
 
2013-11-05 12:37:38 AM  
nuclear is one of the cleanest ways to generate electricity. If people actually looked at the new reactor designs instead of just the ones from the 70s the would embrace it. There are incredibly clean and 110% meltdown proof nuclear power plant designs that have been ignored because... well it's nuclear
 
2013-11-05 12:37:40 AM  
 
2013-11-05 12:38:26 AM  

namatad: obvious tag was out back laughing at all those kids, who cant add or multiply, trying to explain how wind and solar will solve everything.

dont get me going on the "we will get hydrogen from water" tards


Well, solar and wind shouldn't be discounted, as solar panels improve and new developments and refinements in other ways to harness solar energy come to market it could become a more important part of our energy infrastructure.

I suppose you could use solar arrays to split water, but we're not really set up for a hydrogen-based energy economy, and there are more efficient ways make the solar energy useful anyway.  It's not that the people who want to do it are completely boneheaded, it's just that there are better options.

I'm all for more nuclear power generation though, and more investment in next-gen plants that will be more efficient and safer than our current aging nuclear infrastructure.  Sure, nuclear plant disasters suck, but they're rare, and can be further reduced by building them in areas with low risks for natural disasters and by updating designs based on what we've learned in the decades since many were originally brought online.  Fossil fuel based plants pollute continuously as part of their standard operation, I'd rather invest in the technology that could help prevent a lot of that pollution and provide for our power needs right now.
 
2013-11-05 12:38:42 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: More people died due to the Sayani Shushrnskaya dam disaster than died due to Fukishima, so why is hydroelectric power not demonized along with nuclear?


People need to realize there are threats aside from the more visible ones. Like getting cancer 10 years after exposure to the carcinogen, and also the many connections between the nuclear age and cancer in general.

The way we'll know if Fuku is affecting people is observing cancer rates rise dramatically in various areas, so that should be fun.
 
2013-11-05 12:38:59 AM  

bunner: DarkSoulNoHope: Well, it's mainly not because dealing with nuclear power also is dealing with "free market is great, no regulations needed" businessmen.

About an hour and a half after we guillotine the last of the greedheads and give their belongings to homeless people, the economy will bounce back and we'll start doing things that are useful, sans the profit motive.  And, btw, before the Neo CON armchair economists chime in, economies   ARE  wealth redistribution.  It's just time to take the cork out of the elephant's ass.


Yeah, that's EXACTLY what happened when the Communists won the Russian Revolution. Everybody was equally subjugated and starving in Russia. Stalin probably killed more people than Hitler.
 
Displayed 50 of 698 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report