The N Word

[Jesse-Ray]

I refer to Nuclear Power of course
Global Warming is taking control. Tsunamis,Hurricanes,Polar Melting all occouring quite regularly all because of Carbon Dioxide emmited from power stations. In a world of increasing demand for power we are burning more and more fossil fuels giving off the potentially Armageddon causing gas. In fact many scientists predict the end of manking within the century so what can we do?
Wind Power, Solar, Hydro.
All innovative power casuing devices but each as unnefficient as the other.
There is only one real solution:
Nuclear Power
Nuclear power gives off no CO2 only Hydrogen gas and is extremely effective.
However because it gives off a bi product capable of killing a few thousand when used intentionally it is pushed into the dark.
Even so even when it is used intentionally doesnt contain the effects caused by CO2
Anyone offering Nuclear Power will get my vote

So Why not Nuclear Power?

[dELtaluca]

At 2/17/06 07:34 AM, JesseRay wrote: So Why not Nuclear Power?

nucleur waste, needs to be disposed somewhere
radiation from plant
potential for massive disaster - meltdown

.. i think it would just be better to wait for fusion to become stabalised long enough
we already got the one in china (being built/built) and the ITER project in southern france being built( MUCH larger than china one)

Fusion = no nucleur waste, no meltdowns, ALOT less radiation and aslong as you keep up the supply of materials its self-sufficient while pumping out massive amounts of energy to be used elsewhere and since its obviously no where near the size of a star, theres no chance of a supernova or any solar disaster :p

[Jesse-Ray]

At 2/17/06 07:38 AM, -dELta- wrote: radiation from plant

Is practically non existant when compared to radiation from natural things

potential for massive disaster - meltdown

Humans are at a time where this is virtually not a concern, even Chernobyl only directly caused 16 deaths, It is blamed for another 100 000 deaths but thats inconclusive.

.. i think it would just be better to wait for fusion to become stabalised long enough
we already got the one in china (being built/built) and the ITER project in southern france being built( MUCH larger than china one)

Fusion does sound extremely promising,
But how long can we wait, 20 years before its irreversable according to most.

[Jinzoa]

At 2/17/06 08:01 AM, JesseRay wrote:

At 2/17/06 07:38 AM, -dELta- wrote: radiation from plant

Is practically non existant when compared to radiation from natural things

potential for massive disaster - meltdown

Humans are at a time where this is virtually not a concern, even Chernobyl only directly caused 16 deaths, It is blamed for another 100 000 deaths but thats inconclusive.

One could say that the evidence they provide for us for global warming is inconclusive, it could be just a coincidence.

.. i think it would just be better to wait for fusion to become stabalised long enough
we already got the one in china (being built/built) and the ITER project in southern france being built( MUCH larger than china one)

Fusion does sound extremely promising,
But how long can we wait, 20 years before its irreversable according to most.

I think it was 25 plus before it would be irreversable, then again it may actually be irreversable.....who knows....

[Monocrom]

Here's a little something you might find interesting; all of the major leaders in the whole Global Warming issue were, back in the 1970s, screaming about how "Something has to be done..." but not about Global Warming! They were screaming about how the Earth was getting colder! The were trying to scare the crap out of people with talk of the next Ice Age. Then a few years later, they came back and are STILL trying to scare the crap out of people. But now, it's about the Earth heating up instead of freezing up! WTF?! None of the leaders of the Global Warming movement have apologized for getting it wrong, back in the 70s! They just expect people to pretend that the Ice Age movement never took place! .......... Some of these leaders actually wrote books back in the 70s, about the coming Ice Age. Their scare tactics are available in print.

[bakem0n0]

At 2/17/06 01:02 PM, Monocrom wrote: Here's a little something you might find interesting; all of the major leaders in the whole Global Warming issue were, back in the 1970s, screaming about how "Something has to be done..." but not about Global Warming! They were screaming about how the Earth was getting colder! The were trying to scare the crap out of people with talk of the next Ice Age. Then a few years later, they came back and are STILL trying to scare the crap out of people. But now, it's about the Earth heating up instead of freezing up! WTF?! None of the leaders of the Global Warming movement have apologized for getting it wrong, back in the 70s! They just expect people to pretend that the Ice Age movement never took place! .......... Some of these leaders actually wrote books back in the 70s, about the coming Ice Age. Their scare tactics are available in print.

Yea, there was all sorts of BS about the new Ice Age, and now there's all sorts of BS about global warming. Such is the way of the media. Anything truely important will be sensationalized into stupidtiy.
However, global warming has something most sensational stories lack: Solid proof. Granted, 90% of the stuff you hear about it is still bull.

[metalhead676]

Well, for fusion to take place, the core needs to be at about 15 million degrees, now, this poses a serious problem, and a SERIOUS potential for desaster, it would also demolish natural resources, i think it's a bad idea.

[Draconias]

At 2/17/06 02:44 PM, metalhead676 wrote: Well, for fusion to take place, the core needs to be at about 15 million degrees, now, this poses a serious problem, and a SERIOUS potential for desaster, it would also demolish natural resources, i think it's a bad idea.

It doesn't have to be anything close to 15 million degrees. More like 8000, tops. And they contain it within a magnetic bottle which keeps it from touching anything.

Here is the most serious possible disaster: magnetic bottle fails, ultra-hot ball of plasma falls on ground, burns through several miles of crust before running out of steam. There can be no collateral damage, the melted materials will resolidify within minutes, and nothing significant is lost.

The most probable "disaster" after the magnetic bottle fails would be an ultra-hot ball of plasma starts falling to the ground, ceases fusion before hitting, makes a small puddle of concrete and cools within seconds, heats up the room by 10 degrees.

[Explodapop]

Usually solving one problem by creating another is not a valid option.

The best way to solve the energy problem is to use less energy. I doubt that we can manage to actually cut back on our energy extravagant livestyles, but we do have the wits to better use the energy we actually have to form into more harmful substance. I am speaking of engines (or other energy converters) losing as litte energy to the enviorments from the transformation of fuel into heat.
For example, the old fashion fireplace where we live now only heat our flat with approximately 20% of the potential energy in the wood we burn.. cause most heat is just going through the chimney. However, our new house will have a fireplace "recyceling" the fuel.. burning it in several phases.. leading to a use of 70% of the heat evolved to heat the house. I think the amount of CO2 emissioned is also less because of a cleaner combustion.. but not too sure ;) but I know you will use less fuel for more heat, and that saves energy :P

Oh ye, if people WANT/MUST use enviormentally friendly energy sources, the technology will rapidly advance, but now it is simpler and cheaper to burn stuff/split nuclei.. think about the research needed to cleverly learn the trade of nuclear power.. Humans can if they have to. Stricter rules about energy is indeed called for.

Global warming I don't believe in, but deforestation and pollution is an whole other matter.. But deforestation is about economy and social shit.. not nuclear power ;)

[Born-Slippy]

At 2/17/06 08:01 AM, JesseRay wrote:

Humans are at a time where this is virtually not a concern, even Chernobyl only directly caused 16 deaths, It is blamed for another 100 000 deaths but thats inconclusive.

The deaths caused by chernobyls fallout are hardly debatable given the fact that the life expectancy even today in those areas become significantly lower the further you move away from the area of the incident. It is rightfully blamed for around 100, 000 deaths due to the fallout radiation, subsequent deaths related to blatent radiation related illness. How many deaths is still debated, so inconclusive simply mean a few thousand give or take are being argued over hardly something that'll soften the blow for all those other tens of thousands dead as an indirect result.

Its laughable to think humans are ever going to be at a time were a nuclear meltdown isn't a concern, unless we replace them with something else and such a threat doesnt exist without nuclear power plants.

[LadyGrace]

At 2/17/06 07:38 AM, -dELta- wrote: nucleur waste, needs to be disposed somewhere

I noticed the thread maker didn't address this point. Yes, nuclear waste does need to be disposed of, and where do they decide to despose of it? Oh, about 50 miles outside of Las Vegas in Yucca Mountain, which has been known to have problems with erosion and underground water contamination. Yeah, nuclear power is great when you're trying to pawn off the waste onto someone else.

Furthermore, hydro powered cars have been patented, it's just that the oil companies buy those patents and prevent them from being created.

[TheTrueMrJack]

Great way to lure me into a political war over something I don't care about by calling it something I do about.

Ass.

It's like Anne Coulter calling her next book The fundimentals of Being a Democrat .

[Jesse-Ray]

At 2/17/06 04:06 PM, LadyGrace wrote:

I noticed the thread maker didn't address this point. Yes, nuclear waste does need to be disposed of, and where do they decide to despose of it? Oh, about 50 miles outside of Las Vegas in Yucca Mountain

Yeah that wasn't the best Idea, the best solution I could think of is sending to the bottom of the Marianas trench or something or buried deep within the earths crust on a distant off shore island, I beleive it was dumped in Yucca mountain because no other Sate/Country would accept it (Besides Iran) So it has to be dumped within the state.

Furthermore, hydro powered cars have been patented, it's just that the oil companies buy those patents and prevent them from being created.

Yeah thats the problem corporations > environment, where I live theres currrently 4 Hydrogen buses going around and an Australian devised a 02 powered engine.

[x-Toadenalin-x]

At 2/18/06 06:12 AM, JesseRay wrote:

At 2/17/06 04:06 PM, LadyGrace wrote:

Yeah that wasn't the best Idea, the best solution I could think of is sending to the bottom of the Marianas trench or something or buried deep within the earths crust on a distant off shore island, I beleive it was dumped in Yucca mountain because no other Sate/Country would accept it (Besides Iran) So it has to be dumped within the state.

So your two solutions are 'send it to the sea and forget about it' and 'pay someone else to worry about it'. I don't think either of those really adresses the issue of what actually to DO with it.

[Jesse-Ray]

At 2/18/06 06:17 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: So your two solutions are 'send it to the sea and forget about it' and 'pay someone else to worry about it'. I don't think either of those really adresses the issue of what actually to DO with it.

I'm all ears if you have any ideas, at the moment all we can do is dump it, perhaps researching some method of breaking it down quicker or catalysting its half life.

[x-Toadenalin-x]

At 2/18/06 07:22 AM, JesseRay wrote: I'm all ears if you have any ideas, at the moment all we can do is dump it, perhaps researching some method of breaking it down quicker or catalysting its half life.

I wasn't saying I had any ideas - I agree yours are the only viable solutions at the current moment. I was pointing out both of them were vastly unsatisfactory.