YOU CANNOT POST. OUR WEB HOSTING COMPANY DECIDED TO MOVE THE SERVER TO ANOTHER LOCATION. IN THE MEANTIME, YOU CAN VIEW THIS VERSION WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW POSTING AND WILL NOT SAVE ANYTHING YOU DO ONCE THE OTHER SERVER GOES ONLINE.

Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety - Page 5 - Dhamma Wheel

Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
User avatar
GIDGE
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:13 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Postby GIDGE » Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:30 pm

I really don't understand how people can continue to defend nuclear power given the current situation.
In my mind it creates suffering and it's greedy.
:shrug:

User avatar
poto
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:21 am

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Postby poto » Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:23 pm


Mawkish1983
Posts: 1286
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Essex, UK

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Postby Mawkish1983 » Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:25 pm

(Source?)

User avatar
poto
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:21 am

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Postby poto » Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:39 pm


User avatar
Annapurna
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Postby Annapurna » Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:02 pm

http://www.schmuckzauberei.blogspot.com/

User avatar
GIDGE
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:13 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Postby GIDGE » Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:07 pm


User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4346
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Postby Kim OHara » Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:09 pm


User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 17855
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Postby retrofuturist » Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:12 pm

Greetings,

What are the solar deaths from... people falling off the roof?

:shrug:

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead" - Thomas Paine

User avatar
Annapurna
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Postby Annapurna » Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:17 pm

This is chiming in the end of nuclear energy.

Some things become larger than their trivializations.
http://www.schmuckzauberei.blogspot.com/

nathan
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Postby nathan » Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:29 pm

I would think the low figures do not take into account deaths directly related to the growing use of depleted uranium or the deaths from nuclear warheads of any other kind, all of which are still contemporary and growing uses of these radioactive materials. Among other little known facts, the overall planet-wide background radiation has increased significantly more from the subsequent uses of DU than it did from all of the previous testing of atomic bombs combined.

Sources of information quoted in this Wikipedia article are predominantly official and not as shocking as the information which has been disclosed by various industry and government whistle blowers. I will leave researching that kind of information to those with the interest to undertake such study for themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}

nathan
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Postby nathan » Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:49 pm

The causes and conditions we observe and experience today and which will be observed and experienced in the future are not the result of human beings in general being significantly more intelligent or skillful now than they were in past generations. It took only a very small number of human beings to develop the various means for rapidly increasing and improving on our methodologies and technologies for exploiting the planetary resources. This has enabled both the vast resulting human population growth and the rapid widespread growth in human desires for ever more resource consumption. However the overall quantities and qualities of planetary resources remains limited, increasingly subjected to forces of entropy and increasingly more resource intensive to acquire. When the global population grows daily by the equivalent of the population of Germany and the amount of land suitable for growing food continues to be lessened by the development of other land uses and soil continues to loose more micro-nutrients every year, the long term consequences for the human population numbers are fairly obvious. The need for more energy to heat and light ever bigger homes and other buildings containing ever more devices in the service of of the 1000 people who consume half of the total available global resources or the 10% who consume 90% of the total available global resources is a relatively minor problem. An increasing amount of energy, nuclear and otherwise is going to have to continue to go into various forms of class warfare in order to maintain these worldwide inequities. Half of the human population of the planet still uses about the same amounts of energy and other resources as did people in pre-industrial times and more often than not less food than previous generations, therefore radical reductions in energy and resource use are demonstrably possible for at least one in two human beings. The frequent allegation that increasingly high levels of energy and resource use is NEEDED by SOME, is highly questionable.

The level of intelligence necessary for increases in desires is common. The level of intelligence necessary to develop new means for more efficient kinds of resource exploitation is relatively rare. The level of intelligence necessary for discerning the wisdom in abandoning all desires is exceedingly rare.
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}

User avatar
octathlon
Posts: 599
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:06 am
Location: USA

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Postby octathlon » Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:06 pm


User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4346
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Postby Kim OHara » Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:15 pm


User avatar
octathlon
Posts: 599
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:06 am
Location: USA

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Postby octathlon » Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:18 pm


User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 14947
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Postby mikenz66 » Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:53 pm


nathan
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Postby nathan » Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:47 am

It would be interesting to see the results for solar and wind power generation industries of comparable governmental subsidies and supports to those which have been provided to the nuclear power industry. Canada has long mined 20% of the global uranium resources but there are no substantial indications yet of what percentages of the global solar radiation or wind energy resources might be accessible.

Solar power outshines nuclear power: Study
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/arti ... study?bn=1

Richard J. Brennan National Affairs Writer

A year-long Queen’s University study has concluded that nuclear power is simply not worth the risk when compared to solar energy.
“The current situation at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant and the anxiety of a possible meltdown are once again calling into question the use of nuclear power as a long-term energy option here in Canada,” Joshua Pearce, a mechanical and materials engineering professor told the Star.

The university team looked at the 100 nuclear plants in the U.S. and factored in the indirect public subsidy, which amounts to the cost of insuring a nuclear plant in the event of a catastrophic accident, and the power produced over the lifetime of a nuclear power plant.

“In my mind it is basically insanity to shoulder the public with risk to get relatively small amount of electricity out of it,” Pearce said.

He noted that in the U.S. there is a $10-billion cap on liability in the event of an accident, which amounts to an indirect subsidy of about $33 million per plant per year over the lifetime of a nuclear plant.
The study, funded by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada, took this indirect subsidy and transferred it in the form of a loan guarantees for solar panel manufacturing plants over 100 years.

“At the end of all of this you end up with $5.3 trillion in additional electricity (from solar). That for us was somewhat surprising that it was so high,” he said.

Ivana Zelenika-Zovko, a master’s student in environmental studies at Queen’s who worked on the project, said that, all things considered, nuclear power is “just not worth the risk.”

The study concluded: “In light of these results and with the recent economic challenges, climate destabilization and a new-found emphasis on sustainability, U.S. energy policy needs to re-evaluate its options and appropriate available funds wisely by moving away from nuclear power and diversifying their energy portfolio to maximize the renewable (not alternative) energy potential.”

Governments should support solar power manufacturing: study
http://www.queensu.ca/news/articles/gov ... ring-study

2010-05-20

Joshua Pearce's feel governments should be aggressively supporting large-scale solar power manufacturing plants.

Canadian and provincial governments could spend $2.4 billion to build a large scale solar photovoltaic manufacturing plant and then give it away for free and still earn a profit in the long run, according to a financial analysis conducted by the Queen’s University Applied Sustainability Research Group.

Queen’s University Mechanical Engineering Professor Joshua Pearce conducted the study – to be published in the August edition of the academic journal Energy Policy – to find out if it makes economic sense for governments to support solar cell manufacturing in Canada. He was surprised to discover the answer is an overwhelming yes even in extreme situations and feels governments should be aggressively supporting this industry to take advantage of the financial opportunity.

“This study uses hard financial numbers. Everything we did is transparent and all our equations are in the study,” says Professor Pearce. “The benefits of encouraging solar manufacturing in Canada are clear and massively outweigh the costs.”

The report looked at six different scenarios: everything from building a plant and giving it away or selling it to more traditional and less costly loan guarantees or tax holidays for a private sector company to construct the plant. In all the scenarios, both federal and provincial governments enjoyed positive cash flows in less than 12 years and in many of the scenarios both governments earned well over an eight per cent return on investments ranging from hundreds of millions to $2.4 billion.

The revenues for the governments of nearly $500 million a year, were determined from taxation (personal, corporate and sales), sales of panels, and saved health, environmental and economic costs associated with offsetting coal-fired electricity.
Queen's started the study last summer, before the Ontario government announced a $7-billion power production and manufacturing deal with Samsung in January. Some criticized the deal but Professor Pearce says Canadians are the winners.

“Canada will really make out if Samsung comes through with what they said they are going to do. We gave them a little bit of incentive and Samsung will give us a lot of jobs, less pollution, and a long term substantial source of revenue. We are absolutely winning on this deal – there is no question,” Professor Pearce says. “The market is much larger than the Samsung deal. The question now is how to bring even more photovoltaic manufacturers to the province.”

The Energy Policy report, co-authored by Queen’s student Kadra Branker, studied the financial impact in Ontario but Professor Pearce says the numbers can apply to all provinces in Canada.

But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 17855
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Postby retrofuturist » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:25 am

"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead" - Thomas Paine

chownah
Posts: 6161
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Postby chownah » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:35 am


User avatar
poto
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:21 am

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Postby poto » Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:51 am


User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1326
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Postby christopher::: » Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:41 am

"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009


Return to “News, Current Events & Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine