Global Warming and everything Environmental!

[the_egonomist]

@Gabriel

I do agree that to a certain extent that we should learn from others mistakes. But our ego prevents us because we have been tagged as a developing country with high carbon emissions only since recently. The developed countries have already polluted enough and are passing the buck to us.

About following any model of though or governance, lets not forget that developing countries choose to emulate than procreate one. That being said, China and India were based on the Russian model of governance and economy. After that model failed, China and India revised their models.

With no country being truly eco-friendly (except the French out of necessity) who are the developing countries to look up to?

And as for nuclear test - 36000 tests per year is not that heard to believe. You may not have a weapons test but it could be lab tests or underwater tests which are small enough not to merit any attention.

Cheers.

[konqueror_vivek]

Originally Posted by gabriel666

Are you sure about the darkened bit, the figure of 36000 seems highly improbable.

You might want to see this - NUCLEAR WEAPON DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT NUCLEAR TESTING?

[chop suey]

Originally Posted by konqueror_vivek

You might want to see this - NUCLEAR WEAPON DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT NUCLEAR TESTING?

hey vivek

dont know if m getting it wrong...but it dint find the figure of 36000 nuclear tests/year anywhere in that document.

Wikipedia says that the number of tests between 16 July 1945 and 23 September 1992 the United States of America conducted (by official count) was 1054. sourse : Nuclear testing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[konqueror_vivek]

Originally Posted by chop suey

hey vivek

dont know if m getting it wrong...but it dint find the figure of 36000 nuclear tests/year anywhere in that document.

Wikipedia says that the number of tests between 16 July 1945 and 23 September 1992 the United States of America conducted (by official count) was 1054. sourse : Nuclear testing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The number you quoted are the testing expeiments which were done for Nuclear weapon capability exercise by the US. Nuclear testing has various other applications and US has been among the big giants who has been using the Nuclear fuel far more than any other nation. The number of tests, 36,000 refers to an approximate value of tests which are conducted in the US, including power generation, weapon testing etc. Please have a look at the excerpt from the document below -

First, one should note that the United States has about 100 nominal reactors, so to replace them (without any further growth) by Pacer-like systems would require some 365 nuclear explosions per year at each plant of some 60 Kt energy release-- or about 36,000 such nuclear explosions per year in the United States alone.

The US has the largest reserve of Nuclear energy (discovered there, Africa may not be far behind, although not explored), i believe it is a responsibility for the big nation to reduce Nuclear testing, for the sake of everyone on the planet!

[willsurelywin]

saw todays news


cracks in earth in UP due to less groundwater.

news channel said gurgaon can be next.

[chop suey]

Hello vivek

Quoting the same excerpt again...have highlighted something...pls check the grammar in the statement

First, one should note that the United States has about 100 nominal reactors, so to replace them (without any further growth) by Pacer-like systems would require some 365 nuclear explosions per year at each plant of some 60 Kt energy release-- or about 36,000 such nuclear explosions per year in the United States alone.

The author is indicating a possibility of some replacement happening resulting into that figure of 36K and not something that is currently happing. Correct me if m wrong

but the important point is that the explosions inside the controlled environment of a nuclear reactor can never be compared with the destruction caused by atmospheric/underground/underwater testing. The emissions are controlled and so is the radioactive residue left after the blast. Care is also taken to dispose of this harmful material left behind. In fact nuclear energy is considered to be one of the cleanest sources of energy

[the_egonomist]

@chop suey

Very good point. As to whether nuclear energy is the cleanest source I highly doubt it.

I do agree thermal and fossil fuel methods of generation are less desirable but nuclear waste is pretty much untreatable and leaves an area devoid of any life.

I dont think either is the answer. There are renewable sources of energy that can be harnessed with the might of a political will.

As for whether there are 36000 tests per year - it could be. But the degree of said tests is a worrying factor.

Cheers.

[willsurelywin]

finally this is my last post on pagalguy atleast for now till my posts be it the recession effect on india come true and people like nikker who keep dreaming about indian economy know what doldrums we really r in..

good bye all .

i will come back when my posts who people say r pessimitic,unrealistic r proved correct ...it will take time i know maybe 12-18-24 motnhs but it will come true .....


good bye all and as we say INDIA IS SHINING AND JOBS R FLOWING

[konqueror_vivek]

Originally Posted by chop suey

Hello vivek

Quoting the same excerpt again...have highlighted something...pls check the grammar in the statement



The author is indicating a possibility of some replacement happening resulting into that figure of 36K and not something that is currently happing. Correct me if m wrong

but the important point is that the explosions inside the controlled environment of a nuclear reactor can never be compared with the destruction caused by atmospheric/underground/underwater testing. The emissions are controlled and so is the radioactive residue left after the blast. Care is also taken to dispose of this harmful material left behind. In fact nuclear energy is considered to be one of the cleanest sources of energy

Nominal reactors spread much more Nuclear waste while tests when compared to Pacer-like reactor for power generation, effectively 36,000 explosions stand a lesser number than what is happeneing presently whch was precisely the reason I quoted 36,000+ in my 1st post.

I agree nuclear weapon testing experiments cause much more pollution than a nominal reactor which generates power, however, nuclear energy is not the cleanest source, but the strongest source when you compare it with coal - which was used for power generation.

[archyta]

hi guys!

i have been constantly been reading all that's posted here. glad to find an extremely useful thread in here.....i waited very long to post here, but wanted to start with an article that i read long time back in The Hindu...here's the link. its abt Nuclear energy as an alternative....hope it helps the ongoing debate..

The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : Energy reality beyond the nuclear hype

arch