Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/16/08 02:11 PM, Elfer wrote: FACT: Nuclear plants leave radioactive waste that is deadly until the end of time, while coal-fired plants leave no pollution at all, as the fuel used is completely destroyed.

Not totally true. "Nothing is being created. Nothing is being lost. Everything is transformed". So that is true for the nuclear reaction, is true for coal or oil : there are subproducts. As for coal, the subproduct of the combustion is called Carbon Dioxyde.

Of course, Nuclear Waste is WAY more problematic than the carbon dioxyde. But just because the "completely destroyed" part is scientifically false (or true, if you consider chemical transformation as destruction, but so you have to say so that the uranium is also totally destroyed) and I'm allergic to chemical nonsenses. :D

(Now, if you search me, I'm outside...)

At 7/17/08 09:23 AM, MacSime wrote: Not totally true. "Nothing is being created. Nothing is being lost. Everything is transformed". So that is true for the nuclear reaction, is true for coal or oil : there are subproducts. As for coal, the subproduct of the combustion is called Carbon Dioxyde.

Of course, Nuclear Waste is WAY more problematic than the carbon dioxyde. But just because the "completely destroyed" part is scientifically false (or true, if you consider chemical transformation as destruction, but so you have to say so that the uranium is also totally destroyed) and I'm allergic to chemical nonsenses. :D

Yes thank you, perhaps I should have made all of my "FACTs" more blatantly false. I'm not sure how I would have done that though.

In any case, suffice to say that I'm a chemical engineering major, and I know what carbon dioxide is.

FACT: the sun is a giant fusion reactor
FACT: Sunlight is a form of cancer causing radiation
FACT: The sun's halflife is so far away it's not even worth mentioning
FACT: SOLAR ENERGY IS NUCLEAR ENERGY, JUST FOR SISSY HIPPIES
FACT: Coal was formed by the sun. The wind blows because of the sun. Rivers are formed by... THE SUN.
FACT: ALL. ENERGY. IS. NUCLEAR. ENERGY. ADMIT IT AND UTILIZE IT, BECAUSE IT'S BURNING OFF WHETHER WE USE IT OR NOT.

At 7/16/08 08:23 PM, jamboreen wrote: How about we send it to the sun on a rocket, its not like we don't have that option.

We don't, really. The energy and expense required to both escape Earth's gravity and then rid the waste bearing rocket of all its angular momentum (so it actually falls into the Sun rather than orbiting it) is immense. Not to mention what would happen if something goes wrong and the rocket explodes...

Nah, its safer and more cost effective to just bury it.

A couple of years ago I did a shoot with Greenpeace. This small clip saw a family on a beach filming each other and suddenly a plane crashes into Sizewell B (Nuclear Power Station, England) and the screen goes white - indicating that the camera is destroyed and the family dead.

I would be all for nuclear power if it was safe or safer. Meltdowns could happen which could kill people in the area. Terrorists could blow one up which would cause the same effect.

Another item against; what about the waste. Already England (and most of the world) is running out of places to dump their rubbish. The waste a network power station produces would almost double or even treble (I'm not being to exact on figures here) the average yearly output of the world - and by network I mean having most of the worlds power being produced by a nuclear power station. And nuclear waste is unsafe to go near for hundreds of years so its not like we could build on it - which isn't a great idea anyway.

So, I think I'm done with my say.

At 7/16/08 05:33 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Nope. I caught the sarcasm. My anti-hippy rant was only on that post because... well, I didn't want to double post, and I hate hippies.

Thank God, you scared me, Funk.

At 7/17/08 12:50 PM, IETFB wrote: We don't, really. The energy and expense required to both escape Earth's gravity and then rid the waste bearing rocket of all its angular momentum (so it actually falls into the Sun rather than orbiting it) is immense. Not to mention what would happen if something goes wrong and the rocket explodes...

Nah, its safer and more cost effective to just bury it.

Bingo. The reason to go nuclear is to avoid the emissions involved in burning fossil fuels. Sending a rocket to space just seems ridiculous.

We have inordinate amounts of space for it and that's even with today's methods. As a previous poster mentioned, who knows what kind of advances we'll make, even in the next 10 years. Hell, we've discovered bacteria that feed on radiation.

At 7/17/08 01:55 PM, alstertheonly wrote: I would be all for nuclear power if it was safe or safer. Meltdowns could happen which could kill people in the area. Terrorists could blow one up which would cause the same effect.

They're currently building reactors designed in such a way that meltdown is physically impossible.

In North America, where safety regulations and reactor designs are much better than those of the soviets, there has been, in the history of nuclear power, a total of zero casualties.

How much safer do you want it?

At 7/17/08 01:55 PM, alstertheonly wrote: A couple of years ago I did a shoot with Greenpeace. This small clip saw a family on a beach filming each other and suddenly a plane crashes into Sizewell B (Nuclear Power Station, England) and the screen goes white - indicating that the camera is destroyed and the family dead.

Do you really think when a reactor has a meltdown it explodes like a nuclear bomb?

You have watched way to much TV.

At 7/17/08 03:04 PM, hrb5711 wrote: Do you really think when a reactor has a meltdown it explodes like a nuclear bomb?

You have watched way to much TV.

So that explains my square eyes. Damn.

At 7/17/08 09:03 AM, bcdemon wrote:

But solar and wind do work. They may not be able to produce the energy a nuclear reactor can, but then again, how long have we been focusing on solar and wind power for the masses? Not very. You give solar and wind development the same amount of time in research as nuclear and then see where we are. But to say it doesn't work is complete nonsense.

You asked a question I answered the best I could. Nuclear waste is not as big of a deal as people make it out to be. The storage methods we have for it will suffice until the near future when we figure out better ways. There is your answer. We don't have any better options right now, so we keep it stored until we have something better.

And I didn't mean to imply we blow off wind, solar, hydrogen, etc. I think we do need research into those fields, but we need a fix right now. Wind, solar, and hydrogen are to far off to be viable options.

Show me a viable option that we could implement right now that would be better than nuclear energy.

At 7/17/08 09:26 AM, Elfer wrote: Yes thank you, perhaps I should have made all of my "FACTs" more blatantly false. I'm not sure how I would have done that though.

In any case, suffice to say that I'm a chemical engineering major, and I know what carbon dioxide is.

First, don't throw me your grades at the face. Here they mean nothing and are certainly not superior to pure argumentation. (Internet is really a wonderful place, don't you think?).

Second, you don't have to be offended. You took personnally an anecdotic correction, what's more we both agree that Radiocative Waste is very dangerous.

I just point out that to write : "while coal-fired plants leave no pollution at all, as the fuel used is completely destroyed." is false, for the reason I wrote above : radioactive waste is to the nuclear fuel that carbon dioxyde is to the coal : products of the reaction. As a Chemical Engineering Major (advice : if you throw degrees, throw them with capitals, it's better XD), you agree with that?

(Of course, you can always say that these are two different reactions types : Nuclear reaction and combustion. But this don't change the fact that RW and CO2 are *products*.)

The answer isn't nuclear energy, it is sexual energy! Everybody's gotta make more love, hook up a turbine to their beds, and BAM! Energy.

we have plenty of extra storage space for that crap, trust me. and in another hundred years we will simply send it to the big disposal known as the sun. im guessing but seems logical.

Nuclear provides an opportunity to supply entire regional energy grids whereas wind and solar are simple not capable of that scale and thereby ineffective at producing to the demand of a growing civilization. I am definitely pro nuclear.

Are you mad? Nucluear power would make the biggest mess and would be the hardest to clean up.

Maybe a little. But regardless i have always been a fan of a proactive "big" picture ASAP so nuclear development is a infrastructure i am very willing to put my chips in.

At 7/20/08 05:30 AM, DemonX123 wrote: Are you mad? Nucluear power would make the biggest mess and would be the hardest to clean up.

Would? You realize that it's already being used and isn't making the biggest mess. Coal-fired power plants are putting mercury and other heavy metals into our water and toxic emissions into the air. These are things that are difficult to clean up. Radioactive waste is localized and transportable.

...intresting