Background
After the Tchernobyl accident, and then again after the Fukushima Dai Ichi accident, a wave of hysteria has swept public opinion in Western countries and political representatives have had a hard time quelling the clamor to ban nuclear power and close the existing nuclear power plants. This agitation boiled over in Germany where the government of Angela Merkel announced a programmed shut-down of all the country's nuclear power plants.
What do you see as the pros and cons of Nuclear (Fission) Power?
Pro is only the relatively cheap energy.
The cons are on the other hand much higher.
The first is the waste. What to do with it? Shoot it into space like some guys said with the risk of exploding into atmosphere.
The risks of a meltdown is high, especially on the French ones build on the German border. Germany shut its own network due to the pressure of the electors, not because of a strategy and the nuclear plants have been much more better build then of the above mentioned neighbours.
There are alternatives which are cheaper on the long run. Yes the infrastructure investment is high at the start.
Posted using Partiko Android
Thanks for chipping in - when you have 5 minutes in front of a desktop, take a look at https://discut.io - looks like a (new ?) dApp for debating.
Of course it would need some AI to process responses provided via other front-ends such as Partiko and then fit them into the "Pros" and "Cons" categories it displays
Yes, our front-end shows only comments written on discut.io page.
Nuclear fission is best way to produce very high quantities of electricity. It is also one of the least polluting solutions. Issues come from faulty building of nuclear-plants. We are still long way from giving it up.
Something to note also is that in some places it is the green-parties who use them for their populist agendas to garner support, even if it does lead to increased consumption of coal instead. This is how it happened in Germany if I remember correctly.
Posted via Discut.io, debates without censorship!
Absolutely! As Germany has begun to shut down their nuclear power plants their emissions of CO2 have markedly increased
Future
Posted via Discut.io, debates without censorship!
IS GOWING TO CHANGE THE WORLD AS ELECTRICITY DID A LONG TIME AGOO
eu am cercetat ideea , recomand https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g
pe canalul acesta se poate urmari posibila dezvoltare a technologiei in urmatori ani.
Arunca un ochi la https://discut.io - mi se pare o idee interesanta dar inca sunt departe de a putea trata diferetele "puncte de intrare" :-)
am intrat dar nu inteleg despre ce este vorba acolo, subiecte etc, am observat ca te loghezi cu steem chiar interesant
Nuclear power is one of the cleanest forms of energy we have at the moment. The disasters in Fukushima and Tchernobyl do not change that either.
Oxygen ....Water....Sound....../cleanest natural energy forms ...polarized magnetic witin and without each of these ........nuclear energy is of ignorance of humanity within natural laws.....the good thing about ignorance is that perfection is what comess after the abolishment of ignorance.......
Thank you kindly
We need to make few more advances in fusion nuclear power, to make totally the shift. Till then, I suppose it's all alright to do some fission. The wastes can be sent to fuel the Sun! :) Green energy is cool, but is not good enough for the million of years of explonancial progress (to come).
I don't no about this. It might be cheap, but the waste is a big problem.
I hope they will improve the solar panels, with 200% or more. I think that's the best option.
It triggers a strong adverse public reaction, it polarizes the public opinion and makes some people uneasy
Con Posted via Discut.io, debates without censorship!
Ok, I said that I was going to "test dApps" under the @sorin.lite account but couldn't resist ... I love debates, I had to launch a debate as soon as I've discovered Discut.io !
What one can see is that the interface is at this point not very resilient to modifications through other front-ends ...
What kind of problem did you find?
//Edit:
Okay, I see. How you did it? Please describe step by step
I've tried to post a "con" next to the "pro" from the discutio interface but the "editor" window didn't seem to open ... or maybe I wasn't able to find where to click ...
I thought about clicking "submit" to see what happens (interface should prevent empty comments) and, to my surprise, it worked and posted an empty "con" ...
I went to see it in Steemit and, sure enough, the content was "undefined". I modified it and added what I wanted to add through the steemit.com interface but it was not recognized by the discut.io front-end afterwards
Thank you very much. We fixed it and added edit feature for own cons/pros. Fixes will be available tomorrow 😘
Check the white space at the top of the post - what about replacing it with a big "discutio.io" logo inviting people to post from the discutio front-end. In addition, maybe investigating the "comment_options" transaction or some other features of the blockchain to see how you can gently steer the discussion toward your front-end somehow ...
We want to discussions/polls looks natural. In first step we deleted "Background" header in post. Btw. our front-end is using comments_options. Maybe do you have any idea how we can promote our app by blockchain features?
I would target people who like and participate in debates and avoid over-emphasizing the blockchain back-end. I'd focus on front-end features such as an easy on-boarding and an engaging experience - e-mail notifications for selected topics, questions asked directly to people based on their past interests, etc.
The key is to bring in people from ouside the crypto and blockchain sphere and show them the benefits of blockchain -based implementations but in a natural, non intrusive way
Pro is only the relatively cheap energy.
The cons are on the other hand much higher.
The first is the waste. What to do with it? Shoot it into space like some guys said with the risk of exploding into atmosphere.
The risks of a meltdown is high, especially on the French ones build on the German border. Germany shut its own network due to the pressure of the electors, not because of a strategy and the nuclear plants have been much more better build then of the above mentioned neighbours.
There are alternatives which are cheaper on the long run. Yes the infrastructure investment is high at the start.
Posted using Partiko Android
All I know is that I'm scared of all the possibilities that nuclear things may show.. Same with biologic weapons? Isn't a cospiracy thing but.. it's possible!
Hi @sorin.cristescu!
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 5.987 which ranks you at #313 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has not changed in the last three days.
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 207 contributions, your post is ranked at #28.
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server
I don't think it's a hysteria related to atomic power plants. I would call it anxiety because an accident can always be repeated.
Kozloduy, is there the Danube atomic power station? I'm worried about this.
I cannot say that a field of solar panels is scaring me. Now, I don't know how many panels could replace a plant like Cernavoda!
Safety is a concern and it is not renewable. But the cons end there for me. It's relatively clean and remarkably efficient.
Posted via Discut.io, debates without censorship!