Is anyone against unlimited energy supplies for the world...

[2aguy]

Here is a question...let's say we find an energy source that is absolutely safe, it's cheap, takes up as much land as todays power plants, and provides unlimited energy for anyone who needs it...does anyone see a problem with this...it would mean the 3rd world would be able to develop into the 1st world and they would be able to increase their populations and improve their standards of living...as would the entire rest of the world...and since the energy would be "green" there would be no reason to tax wealthy countries for energy use...right?

 

[TooTall]

Here is a question...let's say we find an energy source that is absolutely safe, it's cheap, takes up as much land as todays power plants, and provides unlimited energy for anyone who needs it...does anyone see a problem with this...it would mean the 3rd world would be able to develop into the 1st world and they would be able to increase their populations and improve their standards of living...as would the entire rest of the world...and since the energy would be "green" there would be no reason to tax wealthy countries for energy use...right?

Where is the money coming from to build all of these nuclear plants, and who controls the spent radioactive fuel?

 

[Anathema]

As someone who works in the electric utility industry the biggest problems will be the cost of totally rebuilding the entire transmission and distribution systems that deliver the electricity. There will also have to be major changes in the electric utility operating structure.

 

[2aguy]

Where is the money coming from to build all of these nuclear plants, and who controls the spent radioactive fuel?

We are going beyond this to a what if argument...the future energy source would be completely green...whatever it was...the main point...we would have as much energy as we wanted and could advance with no fear of energy shortages...

As someone who works in the electric utility industry the biggest problems will be the cost of totally rebuilding the entire transmission and distribution systems that deliver the electricity. There will also have to be major changes in the electric utility operating structure.

This question is for after the rebuilding and paying that off...which would be faster because we would have all the energy we needed...for more infrastructure to support more people living in 1st world standards..

 

[Ernie S.]

Did he say anything about nuclear plants?

Though you do raise a good question. Cheap is relative. The infrastructure would be very expensive. Who would pay for the plants? I would have no problem with private corporations building the system, but would be very sceptical of the government getting involved.

 

[TooTall]

Where is the money coming from to build all of these nuclear plants, and who controls the spent radioactive fuel?

We are going beyond this to a what if argument...the future energy source would be completely green...whatever it was...the main point...we would have as much energy as we wanted and could advance with no fear of energy shortages...

As someone who works in the electric utility industry the biggest problems will be the cost of totally rebuilding the entire transmission and distribution systems that deliver the electricity. There will also have to be major changes in the electric utility operating structure.

This question is for after the rebuilding and paying that off...which would be faster because we would have all the energy we needed...for more infrastructure to support more people living in 1st world standards..

The first question is where is the money coming from to build all of these nuclear plants? And the second question is who controls the spent radioactive fuel?

 

[TooTall]

Did he say anything about nuclear plants?

Though you do raise a good question. Cheap is relative. The infrastructure would be very expensive. Who would pay for the plants? I would have no problem with private corporations building the system, but would be very sceptical of the government getting involved.

What do you know of that meets his requirements other than nuclear?

"let's say we find an energy source that is absolutely safe, it's cheap, takes up as much land as todays power plants"

 

[2aguy]

The first question is where is the money coming from to build all of these nuclear plants? And the second question is who controls the spent radioactive fuel?

It isn't nuclear...it isn't any specific energy type...perhaps some source we haven't considered yet...the main point...it is all the energy we want and more...would there be any objection to having as much energy as we needed to grow our societies and allow more people to exist and to live in a 1st world or better life style...any down side to that...?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Here is a question...let's say we find an energy source that is absolutely safe, it's cheap, takes up as much land as todays power plants, and provides unlimited energy for anyone who needs it...does anyone see a problem with this...it would mean the 3rd world would be able to develop into the 1st world and they would be able to increase their populations and improve their standards of living...as would the entire rest of the world...and since the energy would be "green" there would be no reason to tax wealthy countries for energy use...right?

I do. As supplies of things go up, so does usage since people don't feel they need or should conserve any more. And with energy generation and usage, you're putting out radiation. And since radiation exposiure is cumulative (continuously adds up) more radiation is never going to be good or safe.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

'Safe or acceptable' amounts of radiation exposure come from how long we're likely to live. If we aren'tgoing to liv elong enough to see low levels become problems reaching higher levels then it's 'safe.' But presumedly an unlimited supply of energy is somewhere in the future which should have longer life spans. So longer exposure periods plus higher amounts of radiation equals more dangerous radiation exposure.

 

[deltex1]

Here is a question...let's say we find an energy source that is absolutely safe, it's cheap, takes up as much land as todays power plants, and provides unlimited energy for anyone who needs it...does anyone see a problem with this...it would mean the 3rd world would be able to develop into the 1st world and they would be able to increase their populations and improve their standards of living...as would the entire rest of the world...and since the energy would be "green" there would be no reason to tax wealthy countries for energy use...right?

Why would you want the third world to develop ? We'll end up having to bomb them in the long run.

 

[Ernie S.]

Did he say anything about nuclear plants?

Though you do raise a good question. Cheap is relative. The infrastructure would be very expensive. Who would pay for the plants? I would have no problem with private corporations building the system, but would be very sceptical of the government getting involved.

What do you know of that meets his requirements other than nuclear?

"let's say we find an energy source that is absolutely safe, it's cheap, takes up as much land as todays power plants"

"If we find" kind of indicates that we haven't found it yet. Granted, nuclear generation fills 2 of the 3 requirements, but it is far from "safe".

 

[2aguy]

We'll end up having to bomb them in the long run.

Why...we won't be fighting about energy or food...both will be plentiful with unlimited energy...

 

[2aguy]

"If we find" kind of indicates that we haven't found it yet.

Yes, we haven't found it yet...this thread is about if and when we do...does anyone see why having unlimited energy...would be a bad thing...

 

[bripat9643]

Here is a question...let's say we find an energy source that is absolutely safe, it's cheap, takes up as much land as todays power plants, and provides unlimited energy for anyone who needs it...does anyone see a problem with this...it would mean the 3rd world would be able to develop into the 1st world and they would be able to increase their populations and improve their standards of living...as would the entire rest of the world...and since the energy would be "green" there would be no reason to tax wealthy countries for energy use...right?

Where is the money coming from to build all of these nuclear plants, and who controls the spent radioactive fuel?

There is no spent fuel from fusion reactors. However, that won't stop libturds from objecting to it.

 

[bripat9643]

Where is the money coming from to build all of these nuclear plants, and who controls the spent radioactive fuel?

We are going beyond this to a what if argument...the future energy source would be completely green...whatever it was...the main point...we would have as much energy as we wanted and could advance with no fear of energy shortages...

As someone who works in the electric utility industry the biggest problems will be the cost of totally rebuilding the entire transmission and distribution systems that deliver the electricity. There will also have to be major changes in the electric utility operating structure.

This question is for after the rebuilding and paying that off...which would be faster because we would have all the energy we needed...for more infrastructure to support more people living in 1st world standards..

The first question is where is the money coming from to build all of these nuclear plants? And the second question is who controls the spent radioactive fuel?

That isn't the question. Where does the money come from to build coal fired power plants? When people need something, they get the money to pay for it.

 

[mamooth]

And since radiation exposiure is cumulative (continuously adds up) more radiation is never going to be good or safe.

Incorrect. Below a certain level, radiation exposure is meaningless. Living creatures can and do self-repair a certain amount of radiation damage. That's an evolutionary adaptation of living on a planet bathed in a low-level radiation flux, something life had mastered before it crawled out of the oceans.

As proof of that, we can see how humans who live in areas with higher background counts have cancer rates that are no different from those of humans who live in low background count areas.

 

[mamooth]

Why...we won't be fighting about energy or food...both will be plentiful with unlimited energy...

Star Trek, in other words. The utopian United Federation of Planets. Which is also kind of socialist.

Hey, you can always head to the frontier if you don't like utopia.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

And since radiation exposiure is cumulative (continuously adds up) more radiation is never going to be good or safe.

Incorrect. Below a certain level, radiation exposure is meaningless. Living creatures can and do self-repair a certain amount of radiation damage. That's an evolutionary adaptation of living on a planet bathed in a low-level radiation flux, something life had mastered before it crawled out of the oceans.

As proof of that, we can see how humans who live in areas with higher background counts have cancer rates that are no different from those of humans who live in low background count areas.

Only known creatures (on this planet) who can do radiological self-repair are microscopic like Deinococcus radiodurans (a microbe,) and tardigrades.
Space Suits Them First Animal That Can Survive in Orbit - Scientific American

The background radiation in some places (Brazil's beaches for example,) hasn't caused Brazilians to evolve radiation repair. It's simply that they don't live long enough to see negative effects. If they did, they would.

Their ability to do so in fact has resulted in geneticists trying to extract the gene(s) responsible for implantation into humans. Space travel means exposure to cumulative, lethal amounts of radiation. Without figuring out shielding or some biological solution, space travel will never be practical.

 

[TooTall]

Here is a question...let's say we find an energy source that is absolutely safe, it's cheap, takes up as much land as todays power plants, and provides unlimited energy for anyone who needs it...does anyone see a problem with this...it would mean the 3rd world would be able to develop into the 1st world and they would be able to increase their populations and improve their standards of living...as would the entire rest of the world...and since the energy would be "green" there would be no reason to tax wealthy countries for energy use...right?

Where is the money coming from to build all of these nuclear plants, and who controls the spent radioactive fuel?

There is no spent fuel from fusion reactors. However, that won't stop libturds from objecting to it.

Why does the NEI publish these lies?

A typical nuclear power plant in a year generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. The nuclear industry generates a total of about 2,000 - 2,300 metric tons of used fuel per year.

Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced 71,780 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. If used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, this would cover a football field about seven yards deep.

High-level radioactive waste is the byproduct of recycling used nuclear fuel, which in its final form will be disposed of in a permanent disposal facility. NEI supports the recycling of used nuclear fuel as part of its integrated fuel management strategy, which includes 1) interim storage 2) research, development and demonstration to recycle nuclear fuel, and 3) development of a permanent disposal facility suitable for the final waste form.


Nuclear Energy Institute - Nuclear Waste Amounts On-Site Storage