«

[plague]

I don't believe that they would be developing nuclear weapons. Why would they? They know that if they throw even a rock, an anonymous country and their anonymous president will cause them a bit more than trouble.

[The Good Soldier Švejk]

Originally posted by Tulac@Apr 18 2006, 10:27 AM
Isn't it ironic that nuclear energy is the only probable substition for oil in the future? And don't give me the alternative energy nonsense, because it'll never be as cheap, efficient and clean (yes!) as nuclear energy, especially when fusion will come in to use...

Clean............ LOL LOL LOL

Cheap.................LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

It takes Very Much Oil, And Other Energy To Produce "Useful" Atomic "Stuff" for Power Plants!

If Fact, The Production of Nuclear "Stuff" (Even if It's "Only" the Stuff For Nuclear Power Plants) Costs more Then Alternative Energy Would!

Nuclear Power is a Waste of Time, Energy, And it Destroys The Planet Slowly.

Very Smart................................ :not_ok:

[Tulac]

Nope you obviously have no idea
The only pollution that comes of a nuclear plant is warm water from the tanks and radiocative waste, which properly buried takes very little amounts of space...
Also if you look at amount of steel, concrete and everything else needed to make a wind or a solar plant and compare it with a nuclear power plant, it takes much more resources, and it would be almost impossible to have the whole world run on that power, and nuclear energy is much much cheaper than any other source of energy...

Not to mention how much more efficient things would get, and the possibilities that will appear when nuclear fusion is "discovered", they're builting a large reactor in Switzerland I think...

Švejk please read more about it, cause you obviously know very, very little about nuclear energy...

[gregor]

Originally posted by The Good Soldier Švejk@Apr 18 2006, 01:33 PM
It takes Very Much Oil, And Other Energy To Produce "Useful" Atomic "Stuff" for Power Plants!

If Fact, The Production of Nuclear "Stuff" (Even if It's "Only" the Stuff For Nuclear Power Plants) Costs more Then Alternative Energy Would!

Nuclear Power is a Waste of Time, Energy, And it Destroys The Planet Slowly.

Current nuclear reactors return around 40-60 times the invested energy when using life cycle analysis. This is better than coal, natural gas, and current renewables except hydropower.

Nuclear proponents often assert that renewable sources of power have not solved problems like intermittent output, high costs, and diffuse output which requires the use of large surface areas and much construction material and which increases distribution losses. For example, studies in Britain have shown that increasing wind power production contribution to 20% of all energy production, without costly pumped hydro or electrolysis/fuel cell storage, would only reduce coal or nuclear power plant capacity by 6.7% (from 59 to 55 GWe) since they must remain as backup in the absence of power storage. Nuclear proponents often claim that increasing the contribution of intermittent energy sources above that is not possible with current technology [47]. Some renewable energy sources, such as solar, overlap well with peak electricial production and reduce the need of spare generating capacity. Future applications that use electricity when it is available (e.g. for pressurizing water systems, desalination, or hydrogen generation) would help to reduce the spare generation capacity required by both nuclear and renewable energy sources[48].

and there is more where that came from inlcuding critics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

the only con problems i see are nuclear waste and possible accident. but accidents can be prevented and nuclear waste can be stored safely or perhaps in later stage be launched into space (moon seems like a good target )

[TheChosen]

*Starts the hippy march*
*Plays The Beatles songs*
*Holds the sign: Free world from nukes!*

[PrejudiceSucks]

They won't attack us, definately not. Nuclear weapons are more a deterant than anything else, like a burglar alarm, I suppose. Which kills millions and ruins land for years.

But my simile stands.

[Blood-Pigggy]

Is this talking about the US or us since I doubt they'll be able to bomb a website, or maybe you should learn how to properly capitilize stuff all yall peeps who been doin dat.

[PrejudiceSucks]

Originally posted by Blood-Pigggy@Apr 18 2006, 02:27 PM
Is this talking about the US or us since I doubt they'll be able to bomb a website, or maybe you should learn how to properly capitilize stuff all yall peeps who been doin dat.

I think they meant us. As in the world in general.

[Blood-Pigggy]

So, they're going to bomb the world?
That's going to take alot of bombs.

[rlbell]

Originally posted by gregor@Apr 18 2006, 01:53 PM

the only con problems i see are nuclear waste and possible accident. but accidents can be prevented and nuclear waste can be stored safely or perhaps in later stage be launched into space (moon seems like a good target )

Let us examine the worst nuclear accident in the history of nuclear generated electricity-- Chernobyl.

What caused the accident?

Misoperation of the reactor forced upon the plant operators by people who did not work there.

Someone decided that it was important to know if the latent heat of the core could produce enough energy to complete a plant shutdown, in the absence of offsite power.

Performing this experiment required the reactor to be operated in a manner that its designers knew could cause a devastating explosion, so there were multiple safety systems that would shutdown the reactor before it got to the unstable operating point. As the powers-that-be insisted on the experiment, the safety systems were deliberately sabotaged. It would be a very ticklish task to run the reactor without the safety systems, but it could be done. Unfortunately, the experiment could not be completed before the shift change, and the soviet work ethic completed the job that the offsite manager had started. The workers pretend to work and the government pretends to pay them. Not only did the operators coming off shift not put the safety systems back in operation, they did not even bother to tell the operators coming on shift what they had done. The operators tried to ramp up the power to normal operating levels, and the safety systems did not stop them. To make matters worse, instead of the massive steel reinforced, concrete containment buildings favored in the west, the structure housing the reactors at chernobyl was designed merely to keep out the weather. It was nothing more than sheet metal over a steel girder frame.

As a result, one hundred and seventy people were killed, and a large wildlife park was created. The only health effects that can be attributed to the radioactive contamination is an increase in thyroid cancers, a cancer that is so easy to treat, even the poor folk of Belorus can afford the treatment, and the mortality rate is almost nil.

Most of the damage attributed to Chernobyl were caused by people reacting in irrational fear. I met a woman in Fance who was sure that it was not safe to buy Italian cabbages, due to potential contamination. Other fears were much worse. Hundreds of women aborted their unborn children for fear of birth defects, and there was the great reindeer cull in Lapland. Finally, most of the people not actually tied to the land in Belorus, particularily all of the health professionals, left, and no one would buy the produce grown by those that could not leave, making their poverty even worse.

This is the worst accident, so far, and it required a reactor with no containment and very real design flaws, with most of its safety systems disabled. Compared to other industrial accidents, like Bhopal or any burst dam, it was a non-event grossly overhyped by fearmongering anti-nuclear activists.

The biggest accident in the US was Three Mile Island. Some backup systems were down for scheduled maintenance, and a failed pressuriser valve was realeasing primary coolant into the containment dome. Basically the operators managed to do the absolutely worst thing at the absolutely worst time. In fact, a band of terrorists with nuclear engineering degrees would have been hard pressed to have caused more damage, without the application of high explosives--that is how bad the plant operators were doing. To supply an example what they did, when coolant pressure fell to the point that the coolant pump started to cavitate, the operators shut off the only operable coolant pump to the reactor, to prevent damage to the pump. That is right, they saved the pump, at the cost of the reactor core. All of the damage from the accident was financial in nature. The people that owned the reactor lost their investment, and the people that worked there lost their job.

President Carter, a former US navy nuclear engineer, with first hand experience of what a real nuclear meltdown looks like (he was sent up to observe the meltdown at the Chalk River Nuclear laboratories, in 1959), told his fellow americans that there was nothing to worry about, not that anyone believed him, thanks to fearmongering antinuclear activists.

The serious problem with nuclear accidents is that there are not enough of them for underwriters to offer liability insurance, as the antinuclear activists keep saying 'if nuclear power is so safe, why can't powerplants buy insurance against accidents?'.

Disposing radioactive waste, as a technical problem, has been solved for some time. As a political problem, it continues to be an issue. Nuclear waste disposal in the US is a thorny problem, because the government has been collecting disposal fees, but never built a disposal site. Nevada was the chosen victim for political reasons, not technical ones. Minnesota, or Wisconsin (whichever one shares the geology of the Canadian Shield) would have been a much better technical choice, but they had the political clout to get the disposal site moved.

An indian tribe with geologically suitable land offered to host the site but racist lawyers employed by environmentalists convinced a court that the indians could not possibly be making an informed choice, so the native americans were patted on the head and told that only white people were wise enough to site waste disposal facilities. That the native americans did not get the American Civil Liberties Union involved tells me that the environmentalists have the ACLU in their pocket.

Nuclear power will have a rosy future, once people realise that the fearmongering antinuclear activists are a bunch of manipulative liars who want to dictate how we live our lives. They see nuclear power as a threat as it would produce enough cheap power to maintain our consumer lifestyle and conserve the environment, so the antinuclear activists would have to go out and work for a living.

Putting nuclear waste on the moon is a bad idea, just look what happened to Moonbase Alpha .