LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices



Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 02-17-2006, 09:38 AM   #31
vharishankar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,142
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 121Reputation: 121

Quote:
coal-based solutions actually produce more radioactive waste than nuclear power does.
Can you point to an article which said that?

Actually I think you must have misunderstood. Only nuclear fuels and waste are radioactive. Combustion of coal and certain hydrocarbon fuels produce a lot of heat and air pollution in the form of noxious gases and carbon dust etc. etc., but not radioactive waste in the strict sense of the word. Scientifically speaking, the two kinds of pollution are totally different but radioactivity is definitely more deadly since you only need to be exposed to it to feel its effect and it's much more difficult to contain radioactivity...

Humans can (and are able to) tolerate a certain degree of air pollution without permanent damage to health, but cannot be exposed to radioactivity for any amount of time without running serious risk of illness or death. That's the major difference...
 
Old 02-17-2006, 10:15 AM   #32
Dragineez
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: Annapolis
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 275

Rep: Reputation: 32
Waste Not

Radiation From Coal
Coal Ash As Nuclear Fuel?

Quote:
Typical concentration of radioactive material in coal is about 4 ppm. A 1000 MW coal plant burns approximately 11,000 tons of coal every day. The total emissions of radioactive material are therefore about 88 pounds per day. (40 Kilos to those who use a sensible measuring system.) Of that, about 1% is assumed to be released as fly ash in a modern plant with 10% in one with no scrubbers or bag house. The rest goes into the unmonitored ash pile which is often right next to a body of water. Of course, even this amount of radioactive material has no discernable health effect on the local population. It is just interesting to compare it against the releases from a nuclear plant, which are measured in milligrams or micro curies.

Last edited by Dragineez; 02-17-2006 at 10:32 AM.
 
Old 02-17-2006, 10:38 AM   #33
vharishankar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,142
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 121Reputation: 121
Okay. Thank you for that. Theoritically speaking of course, pure coal should not have any radioactive content. But of course, practically the ore would be contaminated by other substances including natural Uranium ore and Thorium. This also illustrates also shows us how much governments and politicians would like to conveniently cover up some of the hazards of technology today and it also reinforces my original point about the dangers of nuclear pollution.

And let me add that I am not denying the health hazard of the air pollution caused by coal dust and ash and certainly we need to find cleaner solutions. But there is a qualitative difference between air pollution and radioactive pollution, which was my point.

Nuclear technology at its present state of development just is not ideal as that clean alternative as I mentioned. And disposal is certainly a problem with the by-products of nuclear fission. Even if the main element is reusable as a fuel, there would be other radioactive byproducts as well. The cost of protective technology would be almost 70-80% of a reactor's total capital input I would presume.

As I said before, where nuclear technology is concerned, I would prefer to remain a stark pessimist rather than a dangerous optimist.
 
Old 02-17-2006, 01:15 PM   #34
gunnix
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Distribution: Arch, Debian and FreeBSD
Posts: 243

Rep: Reputation: 30
Let's take a more practical look at the situation... let the ethical stuff out of this. For example coal was forbidden to use (except for the blacksmith) because of it's bad effects on environment before most of our wood ran out...

Then when you look at the situation for nuclear energy you might realize that to replace the energy from fossil fuels (oil and coals) you need to build at least 4 times as many nuclear plants. While a nuclear plant normally takes about 10 years to build, which uses an enormous amount of energy as well which wouldn't be there anymore when we only start building when the economy is collapsing (estimated between 2008-2015). Apart from that, nuclear plants need uranium. With the current use of uranium it would run out in an estimated 50 years.

All the other alternative energy will not be capable to bring us anywhere either. Nuclear fusion is 50 years away, so they claim, but that keeps in account that there would be used just as much money on that research as there is now (which won't happen if economy collapses..). Solar panels, wind and water turbines, biodiesel cannot stop an economic collapse.

And whrn you talk about hydrogen you should realize that the process to make hydrogen makes for a 50 percent energy loss at least. And most hydrogen today is made with fossil fuels...

Besides from oil running out there are many other things running out.
-The silver and copper mines would be empty in about 20 years.
-The drinking water is running out globally.
-The land surface is becoming less furtile every year because of the desastrous agricultural practices (desertification).
-The more and more complex our civilization gets makes us less profit for input.
-The climate is changing dramatically, partly because the sun is getting hotter and hotter. Some even say that a pole shift could happen, or that all electrical circuits are going to burn down in 2012 due to the high magnetic radiation of the sun (this happened in the 1850's as well, luckily there wasn't as much electrical equipment then, still all the telegraph lines burned trough -- and those aren't the kind that brake by rubbing a finger on it, like today's technology..)

In history the European civilization has stould for big problems too. Like the wood running out, or farmland running out (that's why we need to conquer more land), etc. Civilization always went on, but it's clear that this situation is enormously different. Because it's a global situation and there is no other land left to conquer to solve the situation. There might be loads of resources on other planets but that's of no use to us.

Other civilizations already collapsed by their own destruction, quite similar to the situation we face now. For example the Mayan civilization.

I'm pretty sure that we'll be forced to return to a more sustainable society to survive. And also I don't think that people were that bad off as hunter gatherers (as is commonly believed). For example if you look at the last hunter gatherer tribes on earth they are very healthy (not many diseases) and live quite a pleasant life (as far as they are not forced of their lands because of other fucked up people..). In 2000 the Bantu farmers were dying by thousands because of a drought destroying their crops while the Bushmen in the same area were just a little worse off then normally and were quite well fed.

If you're interested in reading where I get this info from:
http://anthropik.com/
--> Read the thirty theses: http://anthropik.com/thirty (you don't need to start with the first ones -- I found those the less interesting ones)

http://www.inthewake.org/

Last edited by gunnix; 02-17-2006 at 01:24 PM.
 
Old 02-17-2006, 04:46 PM   #35
peter_89
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Distribution: Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP2; Slackware Linux 10.2
Posts: 215

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
I'm pretty sure that we'll be forced to return to a more sustainable society to survive.
No matter what society this will happen. Technological advancement is something humans cannot live without developing; however, it will ultimately kill every society; and therefore every society will collapse eventually. There's nothing to be done about it except admit that this is the way the world works.
 
Old 02-17-2006, 05:51 PM   #36
primo
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2005
Posts: 542

Rep: Reputation: 34
I'm pretty sure that we'll be forced to return to a more sustainable society to survive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter_89
No matter what society this will happen. Technological advancement is something humans cannot live without developing; however, it will ultimately kill every society; and therefore every society will collapse eventually. There's nothing to be done about it except admit that this is the way the world works.
If we are lucky we'll keep with us some recorded history of our failed attempts to control our destiny, maybe we'll manage to have a new start. But taking action isn't that futile. These world leaders unwilling to sacrifice "economy growth" vs environment health, they care only for their own lifetime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunnix
Other civilizations already collapsed by their own destruction, quite similar to the situation we face now. For example the Mayan civilization.
Nobody knows yet what happened to them. It seems that they suddenly abandoned their cities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunnix
Some even say that a pole shift could happen, or that all electrical circuits are going to burn down in 2012
Pretty scary date that coincides with mayan prophecy.
 
Old 02-17-2006, 06:01 PM   #37
Dragineez
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: Annapolis
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 275

Rep: Reputation: 32
So Just Shoot Me

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter_89
..it will ultimately kill every society; and therefore every society will collapse eventually. There's nothing to be done about it except admit that this is the way the world works.
My, I didn't think it was that bad. I guess I should just go shoot myself now and end the misery. With that attitude, the triumph of evil is assured.

I like technology. I'm glad I live in a world with satellites, penicillin, and the sub-dividing atom. We built this mess, we always do. But we can make it better, we always do that too. None of these problems, even the nuclear ones, are unsolvable. In many cases the solution is already known. We just haven't implemented it - yet.
 
Old 02-17-2006, 06:26 PM   #38
peter_89
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Distribution: Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP2; Slackware Linux 10.2
Posts: 215

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragineez
My, I didn't think it was that bad. I guess I should just go shoot myself now and end the misery. With that attitude, the triumph of evil is assured.

I like technology. I'm glad I live in a world with satellites, penicillin, and the sub-dividing atom. We built this mess, we always do. But we can make it better, we always do that too. None of these problems, even the nuclear ones, are unsolvable. In many cases the solution is already known. We just haven't implemented it - yet.
Gee, it sounds like you didn't spend your teen years reading radical anarchist literature like I did...
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Indust...and_Its_Future
 
Old 02-17-2006, 06:44 PM   #39
Dragineez
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: Annapolis
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 275

Rep: Reputation: 32
Mao's Little Red Book

Actually, I did. I just like "The Lord Of The Rings" more.
 
Old 02-17-2006, 07:05 PM   #40
sjoerdvvu
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: the Netherlands
Distribution: Ubuntu, Mandrake, DSL
Posts: 24

Rep: Reputation: 15
Thumbs down energy resources

such an interesting topic, why not making use of the nature itself? :

sun: solarpanels, technology is improving, so it becomes cheaper and cheaper

water: not even speaking of a hooverdam; there are running projects which produces lots of electricity out of the potential differences between salt en sweet water....

wind: windmills produces Mw. of energy....

hydrogen: cars are allready running on it, pure clean water is coming out of the cars, which u can actually drink! still quite expensive for regular people....

even stuff like cole-seed will make your car run.....

fryingfat: with some adjustments a lot of machines will work on it instead of regular fuel.....

biomass is a good one

new photon-quark technolgy produces now 8 times the energy it did
before.

I think there are lots of alternatives, but do we really want to change? Aren't the multi-nationals actually preventing people to develop 'clean' energy: Shell bought the rights for cars running on hydrogen, Why? just so they can sell their own oil!

Nuclear energy seems good, but we do not have the skills to properly get rid of the waste (some people may think, sending the stuff into space is a solution , but at the end we will dig our own grave)
Another solution USA came up with, is just put it in bullits and bombs that we can shoot in iraq, uranium in bullits make them quite effective!... Iraq, especially Bagdad becomes a place to get rid of nuclear waste...

If we want to adjust, for example in the materials we are using, it is possible! Plastic sucks! Tons of it are used and thrown away , why not use a decent solid cup for your drink?
We all, or at least most of us, live in a comsumption-society, this is the main reason that natural resources like oil are decreasing.

It is the will of the people... and the governments which decides whether to use some technology or not..

Last edited by sjoerdvvu; 02-18-2006 at 06:32 AM.
 
Old 02-17-2006, 10:39 PM   #41
peter_89
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Distribution: Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP2; Slackware Linux 10.2
Posts: 215

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjoerdvvu
source: fahrenheit 911, michael moore
I wouldn't trust anything Michael Moore developed as a source if my life counted on it.
I tend to go quite conservative on most issues.
Now, back to the topic.
We must apply what was described above. And also get the environmentalist cause to support these solutions as well. They don't want windmills because they ruin the picturesque landscape, they don't want water generation plants because they ruin the beauty of waterfalls, they don't want solar energy plants because they look ugly... so the only option you're left with in that case is coal power. This is why, I believe, alternative solutions never get anywhere. Not even half of the greenists support them. We're going to have to make SOME sacrafices to make progress.
 
Old 02-17-2006, 11:15 PM   #42
primo
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2005
Posts: 542

Rep: Reputation: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter_89
We must apply what was described above. And also get the environmentalist cause to support these solutions as well. They don't want windmills because they ruin the picturesque landscape, they don't want water generation plants because they ruin the beauty of waterfalls, they don't want solar energy plants because they look ugly... so the only option you're left with in that case is coal power.
Huh ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter_89
I tend to go quite conservative on most issues.

Quote:
We're going to have to make SOME sacrafices to make progress.
Oh, yeah...
 
Old 02-18-2006, 06:50 AM   #43
sjoerdvvu
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: the Netherlands
Distribution: Ubuntu, Mandrake, DSL
Posts: 24

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
I wouldn't trust anything Michael Moore developed as a source if my life counted on it.
,

did you even check the website??? or the movie??? why do you think the movie excist, it is based on facts and it is all defended on his site. The american government tried to sue michael moore, but didn't had a chance because michael speaks with facts!


Quote:
They don't want windmills because they ruin the picturesque landscape, they don't want water generation plants because they ruin the beauty of waterfalls, they don't want solar energy plants because they look ugly... so the only option you're left with in that case is coal power
they..., they are foolish, they donīt want any alternatives!, spoiled kids they are. If you are pro nature you would consider windmills and other alternatives. Selfish they are, money is probably more important then a 'green' world.

coals are running out at the and as well, so nuclear or green energy/alternatives????

Quote:
We built this mess, we always do. But we can make it better, we always do that too. None of these problems, even the nuclear ones, are unsolvable. In many cases the solution is already known. We just haven't implemented it - yet.
yep, it sounds awful, but the truth mostly is!

Last edited by sjoerdvvu; 02-18-2006 at 06:55 AM.
 
Old 02-18-2006, 09:54 AM   #44
peter_89
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Distribution: Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP2; Slackware Linux 10.2
Posts: 215

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjoerdvvu
did you even check the website??? or the movie??? why do you think the movie excist, it is based on facts and it is all defended on his site. The american government tried to sue michael moore, but didn't had a chance because michael speaks with facts!
If you actually believe that then you have truly been defeated by his lies. Half of his film's composition is based on editing out words and using age-old propaganda techniques. Michael Moore is a hypocrite. He owns millions in health care and Halliburton stocks and invested in Enron before it's collapse. He lives in a large high-rise condo in upper-class Manhattan. He owns another large summer house in Michigan and sends his children to private schools. He hires very well-armed body guards and yet pushes for nationalized firearms bans. And in the modern tradition of the ACLU, he gets paid an average of 30,000 dollars for each speech he gives. He wants the wealthiest Americans to pay more in taxes and yet I highly doubt he wants to do this himself. It's the truth. Just look it up. These are now well-known facts. I've watched the movies, and it's not only that the ideas presented in them are false, it's that Michael Moore and most other liberals like him don't live the life that the books and movies preach. If he's going to tell me how to live, to sell my beautiful home, to sell all of my stocks, to live with my front door unlocked and wide-open, to get rid of my defensive weapon, then he better do it himself first. And please, don't suck anything like this up unless you've done the adequate research yourself. No matter what side the argument in question is coming from. You yourself are the sucker here. Not me.

Quote:
they..., they are foolish, they donīt want any alternatives!, spoiled kids they are. If you are pro nature you would consider windmills and other alternatives. Selfish they are, money is probably more important then a 'green' world.
Agreed. Believe me, I've met a lot of environmentalists who do think that way. They oppose the current energy system but cannot think of a better way to run things themselves.
 
Old 02-18-2006, 12:26 PM   #45
sjoerdvvu
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: the Netherlands
Distribution: Ubuntu, Mandrake, DSL
Posts: 24

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter89
I only know what I know and with your reply my opinion changes, I always consider changing in opinion, cause this is the best way to learn things and to improve oneself.
I will never say someone is a sucker, cause most of the time a person just don't know the full facts, so no offense.
Maybe michael his words says truth, but if he is that hypocrite you are saying he indeed sucks (whoops)

But way of the topic we are now, we should continue the discussion bout
nuclear energy
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Solutions for the Energy Crises -- Part 1: Alternate Energy and Conservation LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 02-03-2006 11:16 AM
Linux in Nuclear Energy Research/Development rvijay Linux - News 1 07-20-2005 09:42 AM
Help, energy crisis kt_leohart Linux - Laptop and Netbook 0 11-17-2004 06:35 PM
gnome panel went nuclear imbaczek Linux - Software 0 10-08-2004 02:23 PM
ESR drops a bomb. prepares to go nuclear. rshaw Linux - General 3 08-25-2003 11:20 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:10 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration