"What are your views on Nuclear Energy? And more importantly, why?"
-Comment from Vote or Die
I think Nuclear Energy is a bridge to a better energy source that has yet to emerge. I do not like it long term. I don't have a compelling reason, but I'm sure I could find it if I did some research. Initially I would say for now let's do it, but search for something better because I know it's out there. Your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I guess it depends on how you feel about the environment.
If you are one of those people that says "we only have ___ years or else", then we better be using Nuclear because it's the only large-scale zero-emissions option that we have.
If you think we still have 50-100 years to fix the environment, then the issues/dangers with Nuclear waste start to come up.
My opinion about Nuclear is that it is like airplanes. Both are extremely safe, but when something bad goes wrong, it does in a big way. However, even the effects of Chernobyl were exaggerated and something like that will never happen again due to better designs and increased safety in the US. To me, burning coal is more dangerous due to all the toxic chemicals put into the air.
I really think that the energy companies need to do more to make people aware of the damage that they cause. Furthermore, there needs to be some type of spark in the market for people looking to make renewable energy. Last, I think that people should become more self-sufficient with their energy. That would be another thing. I know when I get older I will attempt to install solar panels on my house, and other energy saving or producing technologies in my house. Conservation and awareness of your energy consumption would significantly help this movement.
I like the self-sufficient energy thing, but solar panels are so expensive up front that the middle class generally can't afford them. Conservation is the way to go until the price of solar panels goes down.
What about airplane flying? Does anyone realize how damaging flying is to the environment because it emits the green house gases... about 5 miles up? Where it is more sensitive than down here?
I know this is about Nuclear Energy (which I feel is a long term solution because its waste can be used, for example, in satellites as a long term power source; it is safer than everyone thinks (one case probably due a) faulty Soviet construction and b) poor Soviet safety standards (seriously, they were finding Nuclear waste in the mid 90's all over the place), its not like we are going to be putting little reactors in cars (which some people (Madison students no less...) have stated as a solid point against Nuclear energy (shaking head...); Scandanavian countries use almost up to 50% Nuclear Energy I believe....).
BUT. Why isn't there a high speed rail going on in America. Yes even at high speeds, such as those seen in Europe (300 kmh, 180 mph) would make a cross country trip last a day and half, but the benefits are endless.
Why isn't there a better regional train system (example Milwaukee up to Sheboygan or out to Madison; Madison up to places like Oshkosh and Appleton and so on)?
What about city train system (for example going from downtown Milwaukee out to Waukesha or somewhere comparable?)? What about at least efficient, clean, dependable public transportation in so called Green cities (cough cough Madison GUILTY).
Answer:
a) American cities are built and designed around the use of the car.
b) There is a strong social stigma of public transportation as being reserved for those less fortunate. And dirty. But it wouldn't be if there was the interest in using it requiring companies/cities to take better care of their buses/trains/streetcars/subways etc.
Conservation is only good if you can get everyone doing it. It's nice to do your part (taking cold showers, natural lighting, laundry with cold water, not using the microwave, less dependency on refrigerators, turing the computer on energy saving sleep modes or whatever, biking/walking/public transportation instead of driving so on and so forth) but it can get almost depressing knowing that so few are doing it and your little efforts do so little in the big scheme.
Joe, you would love Vauban, maybe you should move here, almost everything is solar here. All but a few of the older apartments, grocery stores, the cafe and even a parking garage.
In a rare pro-government stance, maybe the government should help make things like solar power a little more affordable. Anyone think Hillary or Obama are going to help on this one?
I bet there are third parties who aren't so narcisistic...:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MD9F1t9GQzA
Seriously, get over yourselves.
After riding the "high-speed" TGV trains in France, I found them to be not as nice as I expected. Yes, they go fast. However, they make stops. Lots of them. Also, they are delays, and more than you would expect for trains. Basically, if you aren't going completely straight in the middle of nowhere, the trains don't get anywhere near 150 mph. In addition, they were really expensive. 45 Euro ($70) to go from Paris to Lyon, you barely save any time after you factor in the transit to the train station, waiting for the train, stops along the train, delays, etc. I think flying or driving are better options and the majority of people on the train probably either didn't own a car, were foreigners, or didn't want to deal with airports/were afraid of planes.
So, I will never be in favor of regional trains, because they didn't seem that popular in France compared to what I expected.
However, on the contrary, I found the subways to be fast, popular, and efficient.
Therefore, as I have commented earlier, I suggest that we forget about regional trains and concentrate on commuter trains within cities. Tramways seem like a nice option also, I loved the ones in Lyon.
However, none of this makes any sense now. If a city (like Madison or Milwaukee) decided to build commuter trains today, they would be:
1. Slow
2. Inefficient
3. Expensive (both for the riders and the taxpayers)
4. Dirty (as vod says)
5. Unpopular
6. Difficult to plan/build
Thus, I favor more efficient cars over public transportation and the only way around it is very high gas prices which won't be seen for another 30-50 years.
Mein sehr geehrter Mr Joejoezzz,
Let me tell you something about France. INEFFICIENT.
The model to use here is the DeutscheBahn. This is a crisp, clean, fresh system. Trains are on time down to the second. Trains leave exactly when they say they are going to leave and arrive exactly when they say they are going to arrive. (I had one bad experience involving a house near the tracks catching fire - but within 15 minutes there were busses to take all the passengers to the next station). They are clean. I have no downsides, even the Kontroll people are nice. My LonelyPlanet "Europe" Travel book even has a full two pages on how "the German Rail system is by far the most reliable in the world."
The ICE (InterCityExpress) never go slower than 160 mph, they stop seldomnly only at very major cities, cleaner than any airplane, feature a BordBistro Restaurant (probably featuring over priced food just like airplanes though, but its there if you need it), reserved seats and open seats, highly modernized, no need to show up 2 hours early and just all around bad-ass. These trains look like something out of a science fiction novels.
Fact: Trains in Germany are cheap. As long as you buy in advance (it CAN get expensive when buying on short notice, but same goes with airplanes), tickets can be real cheap: I am talking 29 EU to take the night train 15 hours to Warsaw from the southwestern corner of Germany (practically in Switzerland). Seriously, that is unbeatable. Imagine going from Milwaukee to New Orleans for 29 EU, with no transfers, overnight, in a private 4 person cabin. Not only that, you can by a BahnCard50 which gives you an automatic 50% reduction on every single ticket you could buy (Except the SparPreis, like the above mentioned Night Train offer). This makes traveling across the country cheap (say Freiburg to Berlin AND back, 58 EU). That is RIDICULOUS. On the fast trains, with one, MAYBE two transfers. Also, unless if you are riding after 11 pm in Germany, the maximum layover time at a station is 10 minutes.
Another great thing in the DeutscheBahn: "Schoenes-Wochenende-Ticket" and State Tickets. For 22 - 35 EU (depending on the state, 35 for the weekend) you can travel in groups up to 5 (ie. no more than 7EU/person) to travel unlimited within that state, or with the weekend ticket, the entire country, provided you don't use the ICE/IC trains. So with really crafty planing, you can get anywhere for 7 EU (or less depending on where you are). Imagine being a Brewers fan in Madison during September 2008, clinching the division is on the line, and it being completely impractical to drive there, pay for parking, deal with traffic, when you and a group of friends could each pay $7 (see a note I am going to put at the bottom later) and get there and back and use Milwaukee's Trams to get to the Stadium.
The point of those last couple of paragraphs, is that the DeutscheBahn/Germany have made it appealing, convienent, affordable and actually kind of sexy to travel with the trains.
Fact: Everything in France is overpriced. EVERYTHING.
I don't know how regional trains are organized in France, but they are basically commuter trains here, going no more than 40-50 miles away from the base station at time, and usually not out of state lines. Comparable to a like Milwaukee to Sheboygan distance at most, with stops every 10 minutes or so. Sure it would be faster to drive, but it is reliable and convient, so why bother? Sheboygan not really your thing? Catch another Regional Train up to Green Bay. Following German efficiency, that train would be waiting for you. So that's what I had in mind. The RegionalBahns are very efficient and popular in Germany.
The choice of these options being slow, inefficient, dirty, expensive is really up to the people at the state. If the rails are build and the (white) population looks at them as the transportation for "poor people," as busses are now looked at, it will not succeed.
So with a defeatist attitude in the preliminary stage, it will not work, you are right. I hope it will someday, because you save time and convience, and help cut down on emmissions by getting more cars off the roads. Think about the Milwaukee to Chicago Amtrak. Somewhere around $50 round trip, no more than 90 minutes (same amount of time to drive straight through to Chicago). How much are you going to spend on gas? Parking? Time in traffic jams? Frustration? And those God-forbidden Illinois tolls? I would take the train just to not pay those. (funny story, me and a friend paid a 80 cent toll in pennies, you get a good reaction!). I'll gladly pay that $50, especially if its going to cut down on the CO2 emissions (and not fund Illinois' quest of never ending construction). Traveling across country with Amtrak as it is comparable if not cheaper than most airlines (albeit it 24 hours to the east coast, 20 down south and 40 to the west (using Milwaukee as the center here)
Well anyways. I guess this rambling had four points.
A) Using the German model for railway, it can be done, and be very opposite to dirty, inefficient, and expensive.
B) What this needs to succeed is support from Americans. Both as consumers and tax payers. I think most Germans are pleased with the results. (I certainly am pleased as a non-citizen not paying those taxes.)
C) Streetcars/Trams are the coolest thing ever. Subways are also awesome... especially when clean (good example: Munich, San Fransico)
D) Please do not use the situation in France as your argument against a Rail System. If anything, use it as an example of how a poor rail system functions.
One more quick note on cost. Keep in mind that a) gas is waaaay cheaper in the US and always be than in Europe, and b) the Euro is very strong and prices have irritating tendency to be the same numerically in Euro as they are in USD (ie a beer costing as much as 3 EU in a bar, and a beer costing asmuch as 3 USD in a bar in the states). So that 45 EU trip from Paris to Lyon could easily be $45 from Milwaukee to Minneapolis (an almost exact same distance). Throw in deals with like the BahnCard50, or Student/Youth Deals, and this starts getting real affordable.
So the addition of a train system and/or improved public transportation system have infinite plusses for the environment and your pocketbook.
But, you are right, the national/state governments and taxpayers will never support this, and it would probably be too much trouble, because as mentioned before, American cities are designed around auto travel: can you imagine a Tram going along the Lakefront/Lincoln Memorial Drive in Milwaukee (wow, I got chills just imaging that)? Or having completely "Auto Free" downtowns?
So my arguement is obsolete. I just enjoy formulating the idea of having a rail system in the US and how convient it would be. It would be too awesome. Oh well. Sorry for the long windedness here, but after experiencing this part of Europe... its gotta change in the US. Until then, see you all on the highway.
I hate to dwell here, but another obvious benefit: the almost complete elimination of drunken driving.
I'm glad to know that!
That does make me feel somewhat better about public transportation eventually being a success in the US. Of course, it would be amazing to have a downtown free of cars...only tram lines and bike/scooter lanes. All those parking structures and parking spaces could be converted to grass and trees and parks.
But yeah, it will probably never happen. We need some sort of visionary city leader with a large pocketbook...a Bill Gates with a dedication to making a green city. The fixed costs are just too high for taxpayer dollars to overcome--they could barely get Miller Park through and the benefits to a MLB team have paid that debt 10 times over. Someone did suggest a commuter rail line from downtown to Miller Park, but the proposal was basically laughed at.
They are getting technology in cars that detects whether the driver has been drinking or not--and there is talk of forcing anyone with 2+ convictions to have the thing installed in their car.
It still just amazes me that there are people with 10+ convictions that still are allowed to walk free.
I think having that built into cars is a fairly large invasion of privacy. How does it decide? How much is too much? Is it an in-car breath-a-lyzer? What if a person just has a glass of wine, or a single beer, is that going to be too much? (Wouldn't safe and reliable late night public transportation eliminate this need?)
And as far as this machine forced upon people with convictions: do we really need to force ourselves into a Police State? And of course these machines would be hooked up to some sort of national computer database keeping track of how much one has been drinking? Will it be available to the public like CCAP (which, admittely, is probably the most fun you can have on the Internet)? This whole plan has disaster written all over.
As far as costs go, yes a developed rail system is absolutely out of the question. But more Trams and Care Free downtowns? I could see it (I laughed at the Miller Park/Downtown/Whatever Tram because it is relatively useless). I'll be the first to say taxes are generally unneccesary, but I would support this. Germany has roughly a 45-50% tax rate, and I don't think supporting an improvement in Public Transportation would add 15% to our current taxes. Whatever.
I'm going back to the original topic. Nuclear Energy is better than fossil fuels but it has a few major issues. The first is waste storage. The waste needs to be protected from both the ravages of time and terrorists who would want to get their hands on it. Second issue is plant safety. Joe Z, I don't know what effects you are considering to be exaggerated but the disaster produced similar long term effects as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. The whole area is still uninhabitable today. If the plant in Byrin(sp?)IL were to go we would all be in big trouble. Madison is easily within the yellow zone and would receive significant fallout. Plant safety has improved considerably but it could happen to us. Don't forget about 3-mile-island, we had a close call there. In addition to accidental meltdown there is always the threat of deliberate action, whether by a disgruntled employee or a terrorist group. This is one of our biggest national security threats and some watchdog groups have warned that the plants aren't protected properly or that the tests of their security forces aren't conducted properly. The third issue is nuclear proliferation and third world countries who want nuclear power using it to develop bombs. I would also point out as an aside that uranium mining is particularly hazardous because the radon in the rock is cancer causing. Also right now we import most of our uranium so that isn't as good as having a home grown fuel.
Here is the ranking system adopted by the state of Wisconsin that shows the general priorities of energy use and production.
1.energy conservation
2.no-emission alternative energy (basically this means wind and solar. Geothermal and hydroelectric doesn't really apply to Wisconsin and dams have their own issues.)
3.no net-emission biofuels
4.nuclear power
5.clean fossil fuels (meaning natural gas but there is a problem here as well because we are going to run out soon)
6.dirty fossil fuels with pollution controls
I think that it makes sense to strive for the top three and avoid the bottom three as much as possible. Unfortunately this resolution is non-binding and until we get some more conservation laws passed in the legislature the energy companies are just going to continue to skip to the bottom of the list.
Post a Comment