So what do you, in general, think about Nuclear Power and Nuclear Power Plants? I just wanted to know other opinions...

Personally, I'm against all those Nuclear Power Plants, but on the other hand I don't know where to get the energy from. Humans do really need a lot and the renewable energies are not sufficient, as far as I know.
Still, in my opinion those Nuclear power plants are a ticking bomb. There always can be some sort of error. And even if the possibility of such thing was really small, it could still happen.
Furthermore all the atomic waste is dangerous as well and we can't possibly keep exporting it to other countries or bury it in final storages, since it will lie there for thousands of years and will still be dangerous.

However, this is just my simple point of view. It's not like I want to oppose or accuse anyone, ...
*and of course i hope it's not a repeat thread 😔 *

@lambchopsil: thanks for moving^^

There's nothing to see here. Proceed with what you were doing or throw rainbows at random pedestrians.

Moved to Chatter Box

A just ruler amongst tyrants

My opinion is the Nuclear power needs to be study further. A lot of energy is actually wasted in the reactor. We can only harvest less than 10% of the energy available. Nuclear energy had huge potentials.

But I agree it is dangerous and should be more regulated. We need to impose stricter regulations on current reactors. I seen the abandoned city in Russia.

Given that, chances are, the modern reactors are relatively safe and well guarded.

Though I agree that Nuclear power might seem like a good idea, we need to invest even more in solar energy and wind/water turbines. These provide endless energy. And there's only so much nuclear fuel in the world.

Gay book discussion thread

Quote from you_no_see_me_

this is not about cannibalism...please get back on topic

Quote from Toto

I think it is exactly the topic. I see nothing wrong.

Well it all depends on how much the western countries (along with the rising powers) invest in renewable energy in the coming decade, environment hazards set aside, our biggest problem is meeting the energy demands of when Fossil Fuels are depleted and the longer we wait the more likely Nuclear Power is going to be the answer.

Anyway, personally would prefer to abandon Nuclear Power and make a giant leap towards renewable. But due to how incompetent governments are with their idiotic politics makes me think it's best to invest in Nuclear power to be on the safe side. The amount of money we have invested in weapons could easily have been used for different purposes yet we continue to fund the useless.

It's like people don't realize that a collapse of the energy supply or a nuclear meltdown could do far more harm than any stupid terrorist could ever do.

It's like people don't realize that a collapse of the energy supply or a nuclear meltdown could do far more harm than any stupid terrorist could ever do.

actually modern day reactors have low concentration radioactive materials that would render using it as a weapon of mass destruction inefficient and poor. In fact, it might not even explode beyond the confine at all. Besides, you know that when the soviet union collapsed, 1000 nuclear warheads went missing? THAT alone is more of a danger to the world than all the reactors combined.

Gay book discussion thread

Quote from you_no_see_me_

this is not about cannibalism...please get back on topic

Quote from Toto

I think it is exactly the topic. I see nothing wrong.

Besides, you know that when the soviet union collapsed, 1000 nuclear warheads went missing?

Stop this bullshit right now!

Quote from kummel

Besides, you know that when the soviet union collapsed, 1000 nuclear warheads went missing?

Stop this bullshit right now!

it be nice to use your first post to intro and not make rude remarks

ok ok, lol, it was 200, not 1000

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/17/155150.shtml

i don't know why i thought it was 1000.....still with 200 nukes floating out there and people are worried about North Korea and reactors....

In 1997, former Russian National Security Advisor Alexander Lebed made public claims about lost "suitcase nukes" following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In an interview with the newsmagazine 60 Minutes, Lebed said:

I'm saying that more than a hundred weapons out of the supposed number of 250 are not under the control of the armed forces of Russia. I don't know their location. I don't know whether they have been destroyed or whether they are stored or whether they've been sold or stolen, I don't know

Gay book discussion thread

Quote from you_no_see_me_

this is not about cannibalism...please get back on topic

Quote from Toto

I think it is exactly the topic. I see nothing wrong.

I would much prefer that we choose to sink some of our resources into renewable energy research. Solar energy is becoming more efficient all the time, enough so that people are beginning to be able to obtain the majority of their home energy from them, as is the wind turbine technology. These, combined with numerous other renewable sources of energy, such as hydroelectric power, could be strategically placed in locations that they would be most useful in; solar panels in sunny regions, turbines in windy regions, etc.

Nuclear energy has its place, but anyone that insists that it is a clean fuel is paying attention only to air pollution and not the extraordinarily toxic byproducts of fission. Even when properly contained, these byproducts can still leak into the environment and wreak all sorts of havoc. In the end, nuclear plants would best serve in locales that have no climatic conditions that are conducive to other technologies.

[img]http://img.userbars.pl/69/13603.gif[/img]

Quote from BoxBox

Though I agree that Nuclear power might seem like a good idea, we need to invest even more in solar energy and wind/water turbines. These provide endless energy. And there's only so much nuclear fuel in the world.

What happens when the wind stops? Or the rivers dry up? Don't get me wrong, they are nice niche solutions, but they are just that, niche.

You need a constant source of energy. Nuclear is clearly the way to go until we can unlock fission, but for now, I believe Thorium reactors can suffice. I have a friend involved with the project and its truly fascinating stuff.

There is a simple solution to every problem; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.

[img]http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/banner/2519041.png[/img]

Quote from JakeOrion

Quote from BoxBox

Though I agree that Nuclear power might seem like a good idea, we need to invest even more in solar energy and wind/water turbines. These provide endless energy. And there's only so much nuclear fuel in the world.

What happens when the wind stops? Or the rivers dry up? Don't get me wrong, they are nice niche solutions, but they are just that, niche.

You need a constant source of energy. Nuclear is clearly the way to go until we can unlock fission, but for now, I believe Thorium reactors can suffice. I have a friend involved with the project and its truly fascinating stuff.

I'm guessing you mean FUSION. Current nuclear power already uses fission, but because of the high temperature needed to achieve fusion, it's not currently a viable power source.

This signature was recovered from Hades to serve in my rotting armies.

What happens when the wind stops? Or the rivers dry up? Don't get me wrong, they are nice niche solutions, but they are just that, niche.

You need a constant source of energy. Nuclear is clearly the way to go

you're kidding right?
-_-

cause the when the wind stops, that just means we're all going to die. Let me tell you a little about wind

Wind is caused on the Earth because of the Sun. The Sun heats up the mantle of the Earth and this makes the warmer air rise above the cooler air. This causes a space that needs to be replaced. Cooler air rushes in to replace this void and "Wind" occurs. Wind is caused also by the same cooling pattern by taking the warmer air around the equator and moving it towards the poles, usually in the form of tropical storms or hurricanes and taking this heat and transferring it to cooler regions.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_there_wind_on_Earth#ixzz1GM0kEttJ

And you know where water goes when it evaporates right? They go in a cycle, yes, they eventually make it back to Earth again.

What you are suggesting is if the sun doesn't have an effect anymore, and the only way the sun stops affecting us is if it dies, and when our sun dies, 5-7billion years from now, the earth will be scorched by the red giant it becomes.

There is some research being done to calculate the possibility that the Earth will survive the expansion of the Sun into a red giant. K.-P Schroder and Robert Cannon Smith are trying to get to the bottom of this question. They’ve run the calculations with the most current models of stellar evolution, and published a research paper entitled, Distant Future of the Sun and Earth Revisited. Sadly, despite great hope, the edge of the habitable zone from the Sun will overcome the Earth before its orbit is changed enough by solar winds for it to survive.

Like I said in the previous comment, Nuclear energy require fuel, which we have plenty, but it is limited. I still prefer us to harvest available energy all around us. I mean, MY GOD, what is the sun but a million hydrogen explosion together? We already have a nuclear source right in front of us.

For the ignorant hippies in front of the white house protesting against nuclear reactor and support "natural" sun approach, someone hand them 8th grade Earth science textbook so they can learn what the Sun really is.

Gay book discussion thread

Quote from you_no_see_me_

this is not about cannibalism...please get back on topic

Quote from Toto

I think it is exactly the topic. I see nothing wrong.

Quote from x0mbiec0rp

I'm guessing you mean FUSION. Current nuclear power already uses fission, but because of the high temperature needed to achieve fusion, it's not currently a viable power source.

Whoops! Good catch, my mistake. But yes, Fusion is the power source we should strive for.

Quote from BoxBox

you're kidding right?

You took it too literally. There are going to be days where they wind does not blow at all. You also need vast amounts of space to have wind farms, then you need many crews to maintain those hundreds if not thousands of wind turbines. The cost savings immediately go out the window at that point.

For water solutions, only two places where you can create electricity; ocean or rivers. I have yet to hear of an ocean alternative. River alternatives require dams, which, require certain conditions to be met. But the disadvantages are obvious:

1. Dams are extremely expensive to build and must be built to a very high standard.
2. The high cost of dam construction means that they must operate for many decades to become profitable.
3. The flooding of large areas of land means that the natural environment is destroyed.
4. People living in villages and towns that are in the valley to be flooded, must move out. This means that they lose their farms and businesses. In some countries, people are forcibly removed so that hydro-power schemes can go ahead.
5. The building of large dams can cause serious geological damage. For example, the building of the Hoover Dam in the USA triggered a number of earth quakes and has depressed the earth’s surface at its location.
6. Although modern planning and design of dams is good, in the past old dams have been known to be breached (the dam gives under the weight of water in the lake). This has led to deaths and flooding.
7. Dams built blocking the progress of a river in one country usually means that the water supply from the same river in the following country is out of their control. This can lead to serious problems between neighbouring countries.
8. Building a large dam alters the natural water table level. For example, the building of the Aswan Dam in Egypt has altered the level of the water table. This is slowly leading to damage of many of its ancient monuments as salts and destructive minerals are deposited in the stone work from ‘rising damp’ caused by the changing water table level.

http://www.technologystudent.com/energy1/hydr2.htm

There are helpful solar solutions. One of my theories is not vast amounts of space to be used purely for solar panels, but place panels on top of buildings/homes/etc. If every building had at least 1 6x6 solar panel, its possible to power at least a third of a San Diego size city with solar energy alone.

The true solution is multiple power sources until Fusion is available, or Thorium can be used quite proficiently.

There is a simple solution to every problem; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.

[img]http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/banner/2519041.png[/img]

Well, no offense, but if you haven't notice, people have been installing wind turbine in windy areas like the desert or high plains and not in the middle of Manhattan. Solar farms are expensive true. But so far, your only grudge against alternative source is that they are expensive, and displace local areas. But honestly it's not that big of a deal. It's not like every time you try to get energy from solar panel or dam, you have to put more money into building a new one. No, it's just long term investment. It won't appear to be profitable in short term but after a few decade, it will definitely come back.

as far as I'm concerned, it's not how many solar panel you can cram on a roof, it's about the quality. Modern high grade solar cell collects less than 25 percent of the energy revived at most.
Recent discovery by certain researcher in the last 5 years confirm the existence of material that absorb 98 percent of sun light, and also material that adsorb at different angle. These are the things we should research more and eventually they'll lead us to more efficient cells. There's a reason why our satellite are solar powered and not nuclear.

and I'm not arguing for banned nuclear. No in fact, i support it since the first comment. But I'm replying to your comment about "drying rivers and dying winds" which to me, seemed trivial. Hey you never know when you are talking to an adult on MU or a 10 year old. I'm just trying to educate people

Gay book discussion thread

Quote from you_no_see_me_

this is not about cannibalism...please get back on topic

Quote from Toto

I think it is exactly the topic. I see nothing wrong.

None taken. And I'm not arguing against green technologies. I want to keep the planet beautiful too. But you must remember, cost is everything. Chances are your power is coming from either a coal or oil power plant, because they are far cheaper than the alternatives. Green tech is getting there, but it is still:

1. expensive
2. requires massive amounts of space
3. the biggest one, no political will to accomplish the said tasks.

Honestly, out of all of them, solar tech would be our best investment. If a system can collect energy in space via satellite and beam that energy back to earth, there you go. But the technology is not there yet. It will get there, but in our life times? Doubt it. So why not focus on the energy sources we have available to us now and improve their efficiency?

There is a simple solution to every problem; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.

[img]http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/banner/2519041.png[/img]

I still argue that direct investment now is better than waiting for the technology to improve through private research.

[img]http://img.userbars.pl/69/13603.gif[/img]