Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

What energy source is the best for the future of our country? We're still too dependant on overseas oil (which consists of 50% of our total oil) and we need to switch to another energy source to screw the Arabs over so that the entire economy of the Middle East turns into a desert, just like the land over there.

I favor switching to fuel cells (if you dont know what they are, look it up), which are developing quickly in our country. What fuel do you think we should switch to?

Wow, this is some crazy stuff, man. I don't know about screwing over the Arabs, and I think your 50% import rate might be a bit inflated, but I don't see the United States moving away from sweet Crude any time soon. Sure, fuel cells are a nice idea, but they've yet to catch on or get much press. As long as we're still making the mass of automobiles out of a very outdated internal-combustion engine, that's what's going to stay around. I don't know - I predict that in my lifetime we're going to see many, many new things done that we never even thought possible before.

At 4/26/03 12:51 AM, alejandro1 wrote: What energy source is the best for the future of our country? We're still too dependant on overseas oil (which consists of 50% of our total oil) and we need to switch to another energy source to screw the Arabs over so that the entire economy of the Middle East turns into a desert, just like the land over there.

I favor switching to fuel cells (if you dont know what they are, look it up), which are developing quickly in our country. What fuel do you think we should switch to?

First off, We should not try to "fuck over" the arabs.
We should help them if we possibly can.

Secondly, Hydrogen fuel cells are the best form of energy that we have yet developed.
They are clean and will someday be able to run off their own bi-proudct, Water.
As of right now, they need natural gas to run and do release pollution. Not as much as gasoline, but a fair amount.
Expect all major automobile companies to have Hydrogen Fuel Cells in their cars by 2010

Nuclear Power. Definately. Fission reactors create phenomenal amounts of energy and, if carefully monitored, are extremely safe.

Fuel Cells are impractical, and right now, cost more than gasoline, because the only practical way to store the hydrogen is in hydrocarbons anyway.

At 4/26/03 05:46 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: Nuclear Power. Definately. Fission reactors create phenomenal amounts of energy and, if carefully monitored, are extremely safe.

but if they get bumbed by terrorists, they suddenly suck a lot of dick.

booya

Tell me, clock, what is the threat from a nuclear power plant?

At 4/26/03 05:46 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: Nuclear Power. Definately. Fission reactors create phenomenal amounts of energy and, if carefully monitored, are extremely safe.

shit yeah, nuclear power. I wonder if you could blow up a nuke behind a space ship as a means of propulsion? It could sure make space travel faster and a lot more interesting (yeah, its extremely off topic, but I thought it was an interesting point).

Do you understand what nuclear power is? Apparently not, because nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons do two completely different processes...you're problably one of those people who think you could make a nuclear explosing by putting a bomb at the entry gate...

At 4/26/03 10:54 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Tell me, clock, what is the threat from a nuclear power plant?

the threat is that IF an accident would happen, you're in deep shit. That is the threat.

and don't patronize me with clock. I've been here a lot longer than you.

Okay, tell me what the threat of an accident is then, stop dodging the question, clock.

At 4/26/03 11:27 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Do you understand what nuclear power is? Apparently not, because nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons do two completely different processes...you're problably one of those people who think you could make a nuclear explosing by putting a bomb at the entry gate...

true, a nuclear power plant and a nuclear bomb are very complex devices. If you destroy the parts of a power plant (namely the control rods) the worst that could happen is a runaway reaction that melts the whole plant into slag. If you destroy that parts of a bomb, then absolutely nothing happens at all. BTW, nuclear power plants are armored as well as defensive bunkers. the test of the armor is to throw a telephone pole at it at 120 mph (roughly 200kmph). Now, thats only to get through the armour, not even to get past the reactor wall, which is designed to contain a nuclear reaction.......

At 4/26/03 11:36 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Okay, tell me what the threat of an accident is then, stop dodging the question, clock.

I answered your question, read it through, n00b. But I guess I'll answer this question too.

An accident or a terror attack?

If the water cooling system would break down, causing the plant to overheat and create a melt down. There's a lot of things that could go wrong. And if they would go wrong a lot of people would die.

Other than that, terrorism is everywhere. If not from bin laden and his crew, then from some other extremist group trying to raise their voice.

At 4/26/03 11:44 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: true, a nuclear power plant and a nuclear bomb are very complex devices. If you destroy the parts of a power plant (namely the control rods) the worst that could happen is a runaway reaction that melts the whole plant into slag. If you destroy that parts of a bomb, then absolutely nothing happens at all. BTW, nuclear power plants are armored as well as defensive bunkers. the test of the armor is to throw a telephone pole at it at 120 mph (roughly 200kmph). Now, thats only to get through the armour, not even to get past the reactor wall, which is designed to contain a nuclear reaction.......

I never said that they were to get a figher jet and bomb the plant from the air. I meant bombing from the inside, with a bomb causing the plutonium create a chain reaction.

Accidents can happen though. look at what happened in Tjernobyl back in the day.

At 4/26/03 11:51 AM, HuckleBerryClock wrote: If the water cooling system would break down, causing the plant to overheat and create a melt down. There's a lot of things that could go wrong. And if they would go wrong a lot of people would die.

You're still not answering the question. "There would be a melt down, people could die if something bad happens."

You are either a complete moron or hope I am so I don't hold you to your bold claim of "understanding" something you obviously don't, or possibly both.

At 4/26/03 11:51 AM, HuckleBerryClock wrote:

At 4/26/03 11:36 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Okay, tell me what the threat of an accident is then, stop dodging the question, clock.

I answered your question, read it through, n00b. But I guess I'll answer this question too.

An accident or a terror attack?

If the water cooling system would break down, causing the plant to overheat and create a melt down. There's a lot of things that could go wrong. And if they would go wrong a lot of people would die.

Other than that, terrorism is everywhere. If not from bin laden and his crew, then from some other extremist group trying to raise their voice.

You still dont get it, do you? if a full blown catastrophic worst case scenario meltdown occurs, the whole plant melts its way into the center of the earth, where its only a drop in the bucket. the uranium mixes with the molten core which acts like the control rods do to absorb the excess particles which cause the reaction, if its hot enough to melt the concrete outer shell, its hot enough to melt through the ground. if its not hot enought to melt the shell, the whole thing is still contained, and all we lost was a huge power plant. Any explosion big enough to blow up a nuke plant is more than big enough to blow up a fossil fuel or dam plant. then, how is it more dangerous?

Nuclear plants create one major problem : Nuclear wastes. These are hard to store and remain dangerous for thousands of years. At a certain point, even lead shield are not enough to contain the radiations. In the Tchernobyl accident, the radiation level behind the lead shield placed around the structure were still way too high.

Of course, Tchernobyl exploded because it was monitered by a janitor, not a nuclear technician, the day of the accident. So I guess that carefully monitered, the plant itself is not a danger, but the wastes it creates are really dangerous.

Hydro-electricity is still a clean and efficient way to produce energy. Of course, not all regions have the potential of building efficient dams. I believe that the energy source that should replace gasoline is the hydrogene fuel cell, we just need to make it cost-efficient.

Note: A propulsion system based on chain nuclear explosion is being develloped right now for space travel. It's believed to be able to propel a ship at (I'm not sure about this one, it's theoric) 1/10 of the light speed. Quite impressive.

At 4/26/03 01:42 PM, Shangui wrote: Nuclear plants create one major problem : Nuclear wastes. These are hard to store and remain dangerous for thousands of years. At a certain point, even lead shield are not enough to contain the radiations. In the Tchernobyl accident, the radiation level behind the lead shield placed around the structure were still way too high.

Dont act like you know what your talking about.

Of course, Tchernobyl exploded because it was monitered by a janitor, not a nuclear technician, the day of the accident. So I guess that carefully monitered, the plant itself is not a danger, but the wastes it creates are really dangerous.

No thats comletely wrong, the scientists were doing an government ordered expirament to see how long they could have the control rods completely out of the graphite, the only problem was they couldnt get them back in.

Hydro-electricity is still a clean and efficient way to produce energy. Of course, not all regions have the potential of building efficient dams. I believe that the energy source that should replace gasoline is the hydrogene fuel cell, we just need to make it cost-efficient.

Hydroelectric damns do not supply are large amount of energy and they ruin the wildlife, plus no all countries have a rive that only runs through thier country alone.

Note: A propulsion system based on chain nuclear explosion is being develloped right now for space travel. It's believed to be able to propel a ship at (I'm not sure about this one, it's theoric) 1/10 of the light speed. Quite impressive.

The G-forces on that would be enough to liquify a human, The only problem with that shuttle would be it's immense size, I'm sure re-entry would be difficult.

At 4/26/03 12:03 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote:
You're still not answering the question. "There would be a melt down, people could die if something bad happens."

Ok, I will answer your question in two words, so you'll understand.

"Human error"

and as previously stated, the disposal of nuclear waste is a big problem.

I personally favour a move to the already available renewable sources of energy. Solar panels on rooftops etc. Also eing developing in Britain at the moment(which is really good for us as an Island) is sea turbines..

At 4/26/03 02:27 PM, HuckleBerryClock wrote:

At 4/26/03 12:03 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote:
You're still not answering the question. "There would be a melt down, people could die if something bad happens."

Ok, I will answer your question in two words, so you'll understand.

"Human error"

human error could also launch a nuclear missile and could also kill a patient during surgery, but we still take the risk.

and as previously stated, the disposal of nuclear waste is a big problem.

The only Nuclear waste you could possibly be talking about is the water but that doesnt even make sense because the same water is used for years and when they are done with it they can store it without leaking radiation. The only nuclear waste problem is with foriegn reactors where they use solid substances instead of water.

At 4/26/03 02:39 PM, jimsween wrote: The only Nuclear waste you could possibly be talking about is the water but that doesnt even make sense because the same water is used for years and when they are done with it they can store it without leaking radiation. The only nuclear waste problem is with foriegn reactors where they use solid substances instead of water.

Sorry man, but I'm going to have to go with clock on this one. The waste produced during nuclear fission is extremely dangerous and has the potential to do harm. And when we store it, all we're doing is brushing it out of view, like sweeping dust under a rug; it's still there and we'll have to deal with it eventually. We are currently developing nuclear fusion, which produces a lot more energy and is much less radioactive. However, fusion will not be available in the near future and fuel cells will become more practical in the next 5-10 years.

At 4/26/03 04:55 PM, alejandro1 wrote: Sorry man, but I'm going to have to go with clock on this one. The waste produced during nuclear fission is extremely dangerous and has the potential to do harm. And when we store it, all we're doing is brushing it out of view, like sweeping dust under a rug; it's still there and we'll have to deal with it eventually. We are currently developing nuclear fusion, which produces a lot more energy and is much less radioactive. However, fusion will not be available in the near future and fuel cells will become more practical in the next 5-10 years.

Im in favour of burying the waste underground. Not just a few metres, but like, 2km underground. The uranium cant hurt us from that far away.

No, you are wrong, and base your opinions more off buzzwords than actual facts.

At 4/26/03 05:01 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: No, you are wrong, and base your opinions more off buzzwords than actual facts.

Who, me or bumcheekcity?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power3.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm

check those out...

Nemmy quit giving him a hard time.

Affected=dead/suffered radiation poisoning
Chernobyl-250,000+ affected
Three Mile Island-2,000+ affected
Tokaimura-119 affected

Reference

At 4/26/03 05:21 PM, alejandro1 wrote: Who, me or bumcheekcity?

You.

At 4/26/03 05:49 PM, karasz wrote: http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power3.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm

check those out...

yo, karaz, the links dont work.

only thirty people actually died in chernobylhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.htm

I hope that link works