Alex_V

Trey_Lance said:

Microsoft is a trillion dollar
Company, why should Apple allow them to bypass the fee?
how about Microsoft let Apple sell iPhones in their stores too?
are these people all communists owned by China like Tim Weenie?

You call him “Tim Weenie,” homophobic much? In your mind, Tim Cook is a communist even as he runs the world’s largest, by “capitalisation” (the clue is in the word), private enterprise company. Microsoft demanding discounts to improve their bottom line is “communist”?? Are you three years old? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Once more, in short: The problem with nuclear technology is that it uses the most toxic substances known to humans. They remain toxic for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. They are dangerous in use and there is no completely secure way to dispose of spent fuel. The second problem is that the price of electricity from nuclear does not account for disposal of the spent fuel. Nuclear power is “competitive” only if you ignore the cost of disposal of fuel, dismantling the reactors etc at the end of life. How much does it cost to dispose of waste safely? Incalculable, because you have to watch over it forever. Who pays to dispose of waste and dismantle old reactors? Governments do, tax payers do. Who doesn't pay? The companies that run the nuclear power plants, who have no intention of incurring the cost of disposal. Privatise the profits, socialise the costs. The risks associated with nuclear power necessitate a highly militarised and policed society to secure the nuclear industry that is inherently secretive and security-obsessed, for obvious reasons. We citizens cede some of our liberty in order to afford such a dangerous technology in our midst. In contrast: solar and wind power have have no equivalent risks, they can be implemented at small-scale by us citizens in our backyard on roof etc. They are inherently more democratic.

The problem with nuclear technology is that it uses the most toxic substances known to humans. They remain toxic for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Longer than human civilisation has existed. It’s impossible to “safely” extract, use, and dispose of these substances. In fact, we know if no completely secure way to dispose of spent fuel.

The second problem is that the costing of nuclear technology never fully accounts for disposal of the spent fuel. In other words, nuclear energy is “competitive” only if you ignore the cost of disposal of fuel and the reactors etc at the end of life. A nuclear reactor lasts about 50 years. All around the world, at nuclear power plants like Fukushima, the spent fuel is lying in pools, just sitting there. Why don’t they dispose of the fuel? Too expensive. What are they waiting for? The government to do something about it—in other words the taxpayer must pay to dispose nuclear waste in deep tunnels under the earth. Cost of disposal and securing? Incalculable (best guess), because you have to sit and watch over it forever. Many power plants are run by private companies with no intention of incurring the cost of disposal. Privatise the profits, socialise the costs.

The third problem with nuclear power is that it is very dangerous and requires the support of a military industrial complex. In other words, you need a highly militarised and policed society in order to secure the nuclear industry. In other words we, citizens, are required to cede some of our personal political freedoms in order to afford such a dangerous technology in our midst. Nuclear power is looked on favourably by military industrial complexes or by totalitarian regimes. It is inherently secretive and security-obsessed, for obvious reasons. In contrast: solar and wind power, for example, have issues, but they have no equivalent risks, they can be implemented at small-scale by individual citizens in your backyard on your roof etc. They are inherently more democratic.