Nuclear Power
-
Senor Grommet
- Post Master General
- Posts: 3394
- Joined: 18 Oct 2002 20:25
- Location: Greater Santa Cruz, CA
-
sPinko-Mania
- Multidex Master
- Posts: 305
- Joined: 23 Nov 2002 22:23
- Location: Palmy Army HQ
Neither. Nuclear power isn't going to give us an unlimited supply of energy, but it will definitely help us get over the boom in energy demand that is going to occur with the next few decades if we choose to utilise it. Disaster waiting to happen? No, nuclear power plants a very safe nowdays but a Chernobyl-type casualty has never been possible with western reactor designs anyway. Even if you used the retards whose deliberate stupidity (they removed more than 30 safety interlocks designed to prevent a runaway core) precipitated the Chernobyl casualty, they wouldn't be able to achieve the same effect in a PWR or BWR plant used in the US or in Europe because the reactor physics prevent it. Basically - water is the moderator and coolant so if the core begins to overheat, the water boils off and the reaction stops. With the advent of pebble-bed technology things will get even safer - China is investing in these types of reactors at the moment, leaving Europe and the US in the dust.
The correct answer to the question, "Nuclear Energy: good or bad?" is "What kind? How to use it?" because not all nuclear energy is the same, not all use is the same. There are better and worse ways to use it, obviously. There are better and worse ways to manage the fuel cycle. There are better and worse ways to deal with the question of waste. There are better and worse ways to deal with the question of risk.
However at the moment I can say fairly confidently that environmentally, nuclear is better than coal/oil power. I'm currently doing a paper on contemporary policy issues and I'm doing my report into the environmental impacts of nuclear power compared to other types of power generation (mainly coal though). Coal is the anti-christ
The correct answer to the question, "Nuclear Energy: good or bad?" is "What kind? How to use it?" because not all nuclear energy is the same, not all use is the same. There are better and worse ways to use it, obviously. There are better and worse ways to manage the fuel cycle. There are better and worse ways to deal with the question of waste. There are better and worse ways to deal with the question of risk.
However at the moment I can say fairly confidently that environmentally, nuclear is better than coal/oil power. I'm currently doing a paper on contemporary policy issues and I'm doing my report into the environmental impacts of nuclear power compared to other types of power generation (mainly coal though). Coal is the anti-christ
Ben Spink McCarthy
They say God lives inside us. If this is true, I hope he likes salmonella. Because that's what he's getting.
They say God lives inside us. If this is true, I hope he likes salmonella. Because that's what he's getting.
-
420FootBager
- Multidex Master
- Posts: 239
- Joined: 29 Jun 2004 11:05
- Location: South NJ aka. bordom
-
carl winslow
- Atomsmashasaurus Dex
- Posts: 994
- Joined: 14 Jun 2003 21:54
disopsing the spent fuel can be a bitch, how can you safely plan to store somthing that stays radioactive for 20 thousand years? the government has problems planning things for next week nevermind 20thousand years. the containers always leak, and no one wants that crap buried near them.
Reginald VelJohnson
Procrastination.
Nuclear power is just another fossil fuel. There is so much energy available from renewable sources - why spend money on something that will run out when we can spend the money making something that will last forever (or near enough).
Also one mistake at a nuclear plant can have enourmas effects on the whole area and even neighbouring countries. One mistake at a windfarm might mean a power blackout for a few hours. I'd prefer not to be able to see in the dark when the power stops...
Nuclear power is just another fossil fuel. There is so much energy available from renewable sources - why spend money on something that will run out when we can spend the money making something that will last forever (or near enough).
Also one mistake at a nuclear plant can have enourmas effects on the whole area and even neighbouring countries. One mistake at a windfarm might mean a power blackout for a few hours. I'd prefer not to be able to see in the dark when the power stops...
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
-
carl winslow
- Atomsmashasaurus Dex
- Posts: 994
- Joined: 14 Jun 2003 21:54
-
sandman420
- Shredalicious
- Posts: 109
- Joined: 08 Sep 2004 08:41
- Location: Denton TX
yes a space elevator....
come on, that thing would be huge target for anyone wanting to do terrible things. It would be so easy to hit a redneck with his deer rifle could probably sit in his back yard and plink holes in it all day.
come on, that thing would be huge target for anyone wanting to do terrible things. It would be so easy to hit a redneck with his deer rifle could probably sit in his back yard and plink holes in it all day.
-+=Ryan "The Sandman" Edwards=+-
-..,-=(peace in the middle west yo)=-,..-
-..,-=(peace in the middle west yo)=-,..-
I think the idea of a space elevator is in general an excellent one. I think a few people should research what it is before commenting (cough cough).
However I don't think it's a solution to the nuclear problem. Ultimately all our power comes from nuclear sources anyway. But we should be trying to find a balance and be as efficient as we can. At the moment there is enourmas amounts of energy potential going to waste while we are destroying our planet. In Australia we are mining Uranium in areas that humans have never seen. We also have enough potential solar power to power double what the world currently uses.
However I don't think it's a solution to the nuclear problem. Ultimately all our power comes from nuclear sources anyway. But we should be trying to find a balance and be as efficient as we can. At the moment there is enourmas amounts of energy potential going to waste while we are destroying our planet. In Australia we are mining Uranium in areas that humans have never seen. We also have enough potential solar power to power double what the world currently uses.
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
This elevator article is a bit old, but Iheard similar details recently:
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology ... 327-1.html
something else, maybe recent:
http://liftwatch.org/tiki-view_articles.php
-n
----------------------
Another great idea for disposing of spent nuclear material, forwarded by a well known politician , would be to just GIVE the material to Iran.
That would solve our local disposal problems.
-n
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology ... 327-1.html
something else, maybe recent:
http://liftwatch.org/tiki-view_articles.php
-n
----------------------
Another great idea for disposing of spent nuclear material, forwarded by a well known politician , would be to just GIVE the material to Iran.
That would solve our local disposal problems.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Somewhat recent:
Laboratory grows world record length carbon nanotube
http://www.lanl.gov/worldview/news/rele ... -076.shtml
I am concerned about research that goes on at Los Alamos, though.
Anything cool will probably get stolen, and then developed into a doomsday weapon before anyone knows that something went missing.
.
-n
Laboratory grows world record length carbon nanotube
http://www.lanl.gov/worldview/news/rele ... -076.shtml
I am concerned about research that goes on at Los Alamos, though.
Anything cool will probably get stolen, and then developed into a doomsday weapon before anyone knows that something went missing.
.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
sandman420
- Shredalicious
- Posts: 109
- Joined: 08 Sep 2004 08:41
- Location: Denton TX
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
The nuclear waste can be used to create 1000's of chest-mounted dirty bombs.
These will be issued to the first round of draftees from Bush's secret conscription plan.
A secret extradition treaty with Canada will make sure that every able-bodied footbagger of draft age will be fitted with such a device.
All devices will be linked to a remote control that Bush carries in his pocket.
Detonation will occur if Bush loses Florida.
-n
These will be issued to the first round of draftees from Bush's secret conscription plan.
A secret extradition treaty with Canada will make sure that every able-bodied footbagger of draft age will be fitted with such a device.
All devices will be linked to a remote control that Bush carries in his pocket.
Detonation will occur if Bush loses Florida.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
Nuclear, as clean as they say it is, contains a tremendous amount of unusable bi-products in the form of radioactive waste. They are going to continue to bury it in the desert until they run out of room. Bad Idea!
Environmentalist will disagree with this, but I think there is an endless supply of energy that hasn't been explored fully. It's called the Ocean.
For years and years we have been searching for a perpetual machine, a way to create energy without a lot of waste, or waste that can be recycled. In the US and elsewhere hydro power has been used to create electricity along rivers by building damns. The draw back is that the river has to be re-stocked with fresh water after it has been run through the turbines. But before that can happen it must be treated to remove Heat and other bi-products.
The Ocean, thanks in part to the moon and wind, is a pertpetual machine of energy. Each breaker can be used to create a flow of electricity that can be used over and over again, just like rivers and lakes. The major problem is polution due to process, and the same water treatment process.
My father works for Duke energy on the East Coast and his job is to manage the clean-up and treatment of water for Hyrdo plants. And also in the clean-up of Nuclear facilities, but not Nuclear reactors. So his job is to maintain a clean working environment for producing energy and to invent and implement new cost saving ways to treat water for re-use.
He has already invented several systems saving millions of dollars in water treatment. He is confident in Hydro more so than Nuclear. Both of which have their pros and cons. Nuclear being a lot more wasteful, yet yields more energy than Hydro per waste created. Yet the water can be treated so many times before it is completely BAD. And Nuclear can never be treated so-to-speak.
I have often asked my Dad about the Ocean's potential. He says they are developing systems for the Ocean that can create a steady supply of electricity and water treatment with minimal damage to the environment. But some damage is enevitable to a degree. So it is not a perfect system. The start-up costs for something this sophisticated is also high and probably won't break even for at least 10 years. The same amount of time it would take to fix California's energy crisis by building new Hydro plants.
This topic fasinates me cause of who my father works for. But not to the extent that I agree one way or the other with regard to Nuclear. Unlike Bush I see no need to continue using Nuclear even for safe means. There are other ways to produce energy that will not potentially lead to a North Korea building bombs.
Environmentalist will disagree with this, but I think there is an endless supply of energy that hasn't been explored fully. It's called the Ocean.
For years and years we have been searching for a perpetual machine, a way to create energy without a lot of waste, or waste that can be recycled. In the US and elsewhere hydro power has been used to create electricity along rivers by building damns. The draw back is that the river has to be re-stocked with fresh water after it has been run through the turbines. But before that can happen it must be treated to remove Heat and other bi-products.
The Ocean, thanks in part to the moon and wind, is a pertpetual machine of energy. Each breaker can be used to create a flow of electricity that can be used over and over again, just like rivers and lakes. The major problem is polution due to process, and the same water treatment process.
My father works for Duke energy on the East Coast and his job is to manage the clean-up and treatment of water for Hyrdo plants. And also in the clean-up of Nuclear facilities, but not Nuclear reactors. So his job is to maintain a clean working environment for producing energy and to invent and implement new cost saving ways to treat water for re-use.
He has already invented several systems saving millions of dollars in water treatment. He is confident in Hydro more so than Nuclear. Both of which have their pros and cons. Nuclear being a lot more wasteful, yet yields more energy than Hydro per waste created. Yet the water can be treated so many times before it is completely BAD. And Nuclear can never be treated so-to-speak.
I have often asked my Dad about the Ocean's potential. He says they are developing systems for the Ocean that can create a steady supply of electricity and water treatment with minimal damage to the environment. But some damage is enevitable to a degree. So it is not a perfect system. The start-up costs for something this sophisticated is also high and probably won't break even for at least 10 years. The same amount of time it would take to fix California's energy crisis by building new Hydro plants.
This topic fasinates me cause of who my father works for. But not to the extent that I agree one way or the other with regard to Nuclear. Unlike Bush I see no need to continue using Nuclear even for safe means. There are other ways to produce energy that will not potentially lead to a North Korea building bombs.
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews
~Damon Mathews
