View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
|
Shay Guy
Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 2349
|
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 11:39 pm
|
|
|
Is this to be taken only as a symbolic protest of environmental damage in general, or as a statement that the company's position is that producing the equivalent amount of energy with fossil fuels would be preferable, all factors considered?
|
Back to top |
|
|
Greed1914
Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 4669
|
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 11:42 pm
|
|
|
Shay Guy wrote: | Is this to be taken only as a symbolic protest of environmental damage in general, or as a statement that the company's position is that producing the equivalent amount of energy with fossil fuels would be preferable, all factors considered? |
I'm not sure how effective it is as an environmental protest since they were willing to sell the products there for 5 years and didn't remove them until people outside of Ghibli complained about it.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Teriyaki Terrier
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 5689
|
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 11:48 pm
|
|
|
I wonder if this happened because someone behind the scenes threatened to sue Ghibli if they didn't remove the goods?
I am sure it's happened before.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Greed1914
Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 4669
|
Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 11:52 pm
|
|
|
Teriyaki Terrier wrote: | I wonder if this happened because someone behind the scenes threatened to sue Ghibli if they didn't remove the goods?
I am sure it's happened before. |
But what would they claim? Somebody would have to claim that they were somehow harmed by Ghibli products being sold at that location. And it doesn't seem to be a problem between Ghibli and the seller since they were able sell Ghibli goods there for five years.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Big Hed
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1607
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 12:11 am
|
|
|
Eh? Last I checked, nuclear power generation is completely consistent with any serious environment-friendly energy policy.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kalessin
Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 931
|
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 12:23 am
|
|
|
Nuclear power plants typically have to get rid of a fair bit of hot water which they used to cool the plant, so they can be disruptive to aquatic enviroments nearby, but overall, but other than that, I believe that they're pretty environmentally friendly. They're not pumping smoke into the air from burning oil or coal or doing anything else to damage the air, and they don't dump toxic chemicals or anything like that. Really, I think that people are just too afraid of nuclear power because they associate nuclear with nuclear weapons. If they weren't so anti-nuclear, we'd have more funding towards nuclear fusion and might have actually achieved it by now (certainly we'd achieve it sooner than we're going to), and nuclear fusion is way better than nuclear fission. But oh well. It seems silly to mean that anyone would complain about a store next to a nuclear power plant, but since when are people totally rational about everything.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mr Adventure
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 1598
|
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 1:09 am
|
|
|
This is bizarre, because Nuclear power is cleaner then you think (The stereotype of drums of toxic waste that there is no place to put safely is largely an outdated myth)
|
Back to top |
|
|
nicky_008
Joined: 20 Jun 2007
Posts: 10
|
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:25 am
|
|
|
I wonder that the complaining voices have more power than the reasonable voices for this case.
Ghibli prefer save its reputation more than its money.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Frazmataz
Joined: 30 May 2010
Posts: 103
Location: Sheffield, UK
|
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:56 am
|
|
|
Mr Adventure wrote: | This is bizarre, because Nuclear power is cleaner then you think (The stereotype of drums of toxic waste that there is no place to put safely is largely an outdated myth) |
Neithertheless, the issue of radioactive waste and where to put it will become a problem in the future. It may take decades or even centuries, but given that it takes millenia for the most radioactive waste to decay and become 'safe', it will become a problem further down the line and I am all for acting now rather than letting future generations deal with it. They'll have their hands full with climate change as it is.
Frankly, I don't think there's any excuse for having nuclear power when lining just 6% of the Sahara desert with solar panels could power Europe indefinitely. Also, you cannot pretend that Chernobyl never happened - the possibility of nuclear meltdown and fallout will always be there.
As for Ghibli, they are right to do this. Nature-loving Ghibli and the PR facility of a nuclear plant make very strange bedfellows.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Big Hed
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1607
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 4:39 am
|
|
|
Frazmataz wrote: |
Mr Adventure wrote: | This is bizarre, because Nuclear power is cleaner then you think (The stereotype of drums of toxic waste that there is no place to put safely is largely an outdated myth) |
Neithertheless, the issue of radioactive waste and where to put it will become a problem in the future. It may take decades or even centuries, but given that it takes millenia for the most radioactive waste to decay and become 'safe', it will become a problem further down the line and I am all for acting now rather than letting future generations deal with it. They'll have their hands full with climate change as it is.
Frankly, I don't think there's any excuse for having nuclear power when lining just 6% of the Sahara desert with solar panels could power Europe indefinitely. Also, you cannot pretend that Chernobyl never happened - the possibility of nuclear meltdown and fallout will always be there. |
What is important here is to stress that both nuclear fission and solar (wind, biomass and the like to a lesser extent) are critical components of a mid-term solution to climate change and impending energy shortages. The anti-nuclear lobby is today, frankly, driven by a largely outdated perception of safety of the technology and its environmental friendliness, waste water aside.
Generation III reactors generate less radioactive waste than ever before--never mind that III+ and IV will enable substantial re-use of waste material--and advances in safety have made references to Chernobyl and Three-mile Island inaccurate. Given that the infrastructure required for developing nuclear power is well-established, and that the technology is much more efficient than solar, scaring the public with fears of a meltdown in their neighborhood reactor that in all likelihood will never happen is irresponsible when the refusal to embrace widespread nuclear power could well result in unnecessary climate deterioration during the ramp-up of other renewables.
And just as the real-estate for solar is easily found in north Africa, central Australia, and pretty much any desertified area in the world, fission reactors could be built in a lot of those areas as well.
Bah... I think Ghibli is making a mistake. Just because it's radioactive doesn't mean it can't save us from climate change. At least Japan already uses a lot of nuclear power.
|
Back to top |
|
|
dormcat
Encyclopedia Editor
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 9902
Location: New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC
|
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 4:55 am
|
|
|
Frazmataz wrote: | Frankly, I don't think there's any excuse for having nuclear power when lining just 6% of the Sahara desert with solar panels could power Europe indefinitely. |
May I ask how much you know about chemicals used in the manufacture of solar panels?
Frazmataz wrote: | Also, you cannot pretend that Chernobyl never happened - the possibility of nuclear meltdown and fallout will always be there. |
Cigarettes kill far more people than meltdowns. People pay to "enjoy" the former.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mohawk52
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 8202
Location: England, UK
|
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:26 am
|
|
|
dormcat wrote: |
Frazmataz wrote: | Frankly, I don't think there's any excuse for having nuclear power when lining just 6% of the Sahara desert with solar panels could power Europe indefinitely. |
May I ask how much you know about chemicals used in the manufacture of solar panels? |
The same amount that is used to make the computer you typed this on I would say. Are you implying that it's not safely and environmentally stored and treated?
Quote: |
Frazmataz wrote: | Also, you cannot pretend that Chernobyl never happened - the possibility of nuclear meltdown and fallout will always be there. |
Cigarettes kill far more people than meltdowns. People pay to "enjoy" the former. |
A pack of twenties has never wiped out an entire city in one puff of smoke. If one takes a gieger counter up into the hills and mountains of the UK, one can still see the remains of Chernobyl buzzing away.
|
Back to top |
|
|
nargun
Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 931
|
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:28 am
|
|
|
dormcat wrote: | Cigarettes kill far more people than meltdowns. People pay to "enjoy" the former. |
I find myself vociferously opposed to tobacco-fueled electricity generation plants also.
|
Back to top |
|
|
dormcat
Encyclopedia Editor
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 9902
Location: New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC
|
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:01 am
|
|
|
Mohawk52 wrote: |
dormcat wrote: | May I ask how much you know about chemicals used in the manufacture of solar panels? |
The same amount that is used to make the computer you typed this on I would say. Are you implying that it's not safely and environmentally stored and treated? |
I doubt if the dye area of all working computer chips today can cover 6% of Sahara desert. Furthermore, while radioactive waste-producing facilities e.g. power plants are closely monitored by both government agencies and environmentalist groups, non-radioactive waste from common chemical factories often sneak away unnoticed by media and general population.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
Joined: 05 Jan 2002
Posts: 7912
Location: Anime News Network Technodrome
|
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:03 am
|
|
|
Hey let's not argue about energy policy.
|
Back to top |
|
|
|