[QUOTE=Paravin;21184390][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/Gollum.PNG[/img]
Precious rodsss![/QUOTE]
that sounds a bit gay
Nuclear power is a win/lose situation just like all forms of transforming energy.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;21184607]Nuclear power is a win/lose situation just like all forms of transforming energy.[/QUOTE]
This
I am looking to get into a career in Nuclear physics, and, in my opinion Nuclear Power is safe, green, and much more efficient than anything else today.
we've not depleted our fossil fuels, we've only scratched the ridiculously vast resources we have. it's just not as easy because we've been drilling the easy-to-get stuff for the last 100 years so we've depleted the obvious pools and now are stuck with a bunch of hard-to-get oil deposits.
we'll have oil for a long time, it's just going to get more expensive as oil companies need to set up more complex ways of drilling for the oil that's no longer easy to get
and as for nuclear, it's cheap and good but we've got to find a way to get rid of the waste, plus people still don't understand that chernobyl was a disaster because the russians had literally zero safety measures in place during a reactor test and their poorly designed reactor fucking exploded when they used control rods after the shit hit the fan in the first place
everywhere with constant wind and 8 hours of direct sunlight needs to use wind/solar energy but people don't get that they both have requirements for use, people are sticking for solar use everywhere but you need constant sun or it doesn't work, people don't get that
Yeah, I agree, though sadly most of my country still thinks "it's nuclear so it goes boom!!!" and disregards the fact that chernobyl was 24 years ago, and we have new technology to prevent anything from fucking up. It would only be harmful if the country maintaining the plant was poor, and couldn't afford to properly dispose of the waste, and get proper technology.
no it's not even because it was 24 years ago we've had nuclear power for 50 and only had one problem and long island is hardly a problem
chernobyl happened not because of a lack of technology, it happened because the russians were fucking retarded
[QUOTE=Alvaldi;21182964]France is run by what, 90 percent nuclear power?
And recycle most of their end products?
Read somewhere that the U.S.A doesn't recycle it, we just store it in giant cooling tanks.[/QUOTE]
Hey bud, 20 % of the USA energy is made by nuclear power. We stuck on fossil fuel for the rest of the percentage.
[QUOTE=Cheesemonkey;21185364]no it's not even because it was 24 years ago we've had nuclear power for 50 and only had one problem and long island is hardly a problem
chernobyl happened not because of a lack of technology, it happened because the russians were fucking retarded[/QUOTE]
They let the colling tank run dry and fucking melt the place to shit. The water boils and evaporates into the air. Pretty soon you run out and your left with a nuclear blow to a good source of energy.
[QUOTE=Janizaurd;21185344]Yeah, I agree, though sadly most of my country still thinks "it's nuclear so it goes boom!!!" and disregards the fact that chernobyl was 24 years ago, and we have new technology to prevent anything from fucking up. It would only be harmful if the country maintaining the plant was poor, and couldn't afford to properly dispose of the waste, and get proper technology.[/QUOTE]
That the same theory about having natural gas in our cars. It goes boom, well guess what gasoline fumes go boom not the liquid. It's because once one thign fucks up they it becomes the enemy. Nuclear power is the future.
People are so typical. I work in a plant that has millions of gallons of alumina ... something. Any w ho it's has the potential to blow up all the surrounding areas for 11 miles. That why we have security.
[QUOTE=Alvaldi;21182964]France is run by what, 90 percent nuclear power?
And recycle most of their end products?
Read somewhere that the U.S.A doesn't recycle it, we just store it in giant cooling tanks.[/QUOTE]
The UK recycles France's nuclear waste at sellafield and then we use in again in our own plants.
[IMG]http://greenz.jp/en/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/transporting_nuclear_waste.jpg[/IMG]
In return for dealing with their waste they add some more juice into the national grid when we need it. This is what my old science told me.
[QUOTE=Alvaldi;21182964]Read somewhere that the U.S.A doesn't recycle it, we just store it in giant cooling tanks.[/QUOTE]
The [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository]Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository[/url] would be completed by 2020 only if environmentalist lobbying groups don't rape its budget or worse cancel the project altogether.
[QUOTE=Cheesemonkey;21185294]and as for nuclear, it's cheap and good but [b]we've got to find a way to get rid of the waste[/b][/QUOTE]
There's currently a practical solution with [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository]deep geological repositories[/url], the idea is to bury nuclear waste where it wouldn't seep into water or soil.
If you are afraid of global warming, nuclear power is one of the few solutions that help.
I am doing a report on this to for school and it is literally open at this moment
I emailed Greenpeace about if they would prefer Nuclear or Fossil Fuels
[IMG]http://imgur.com/0Z0z5.png[/IMG]
Yes nuclear wars and meltdowns, probably few every year. I'd contact him if I'd be writing a dystopic scifi novel.
[QUOTE=Mr. Kobayashi;21186113]I am doing a report on this to for school and it is literally open at this moment
I emailed Greenpeace about if they would prefer Nuclear or Fossil Fuels
[IMG]http://imgur.com/0Z0z5.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Fuck Greenpeace. We don't they just move to Antarctica?
[QUOTE=dolphinlover;21183464]I'm opposed to Nuclear Power due to the Environmental hazards.
Nuclear fission generates spent nuclear fuel, more commonly known as toxic waste. This toxic waste is impossible to break down, and is buried in the Earth, causing tremendous damage to the environment. What's worse, Spent nuclear fuel remains radioactive for up to 3 centuries.[/QUOTE]
Actually spent nuclear fuel is dangerously radioactive for over 10,000 years. Considering ancient Egypt was only about 5,000 years ago it's very possible that our current civilisation won't be anything more than a couple of history books in 10,000 years. Nuclear waste dumps will be as mystical and understood as ancient Aztec temples.
It's been proposed that nuclear waste dumps need massive stone obelisks with pictograms describing the danger enclosed, buried to mark their location, so that our descendants don't go digging up some ruins of our ancient civilisation only to find it's a massive nuclear waste dump.
[QUOTE=Hivemind;21186367]
It's been proposed that nuclear waste dumps need massive stone obelisks with pictograms describing the danger enclosed, buried to mark their location, so that our descendants don't go digging up some ruins of our ancient civilisation only to find it's a massive nuclear waste dump.[/QUOTE]
"Ahahahh silly ancient humans, warning that we shouldn't rob the graves or ghosts will kill us"
I'm not so much against nuclear power but the fact that we still don't have solutions for even the next 500 years is what makes me turn against it.
[editline]02:02PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Comtochus;21185694]The [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository]Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository[/url] would be completed by 2020 only if environmentalist lobbying groups don't rape its budget or worse cancel the project altogether.
There's currently a practical solution with [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository]deep geological repositories[/url], the idea is to bury nuclear waste where it wouldn't seep into water or soil.[/QUOTE]
Safety and feasibility assessment
The pit Asse II is a former salt mine in the mountain range of Asse in Lower Saxony/Germany, that was allegedly used as a research mine since 1965. Between 1967 and 1978 radioactive waste was placed in storage. Research indicated that brine contaminated with radioactive caesium-137, plutonium and strontium was leaking from the mine since 1988 but was not reported until June 2008[16]
The repository for radioactive waste Morsleben is a deep geological repository for radioactive waste in the rock salt mine Bartensleben in Morsleben, in Lower Saxony/Germany that was used from 1972–1998. Since 2003 480,000 m3 (630,000 cu yd) of salt-concrete has been pumped into the pit to temporarily stabilize the upper levels. The salt dome is in the state of collapse.
Not that safe.
We can shoot it to the sun.
[editline]02:12PM[/editline]
Or make a moonbase.
[QUOTE=evilking1;21186637]We can shoot it to the sun.
[editline]02:12PM[/editline]
Or make a moonbase.[/QUOTE]
It's not like the moon has an ecosystem we could ruin if something happened. and it's a little know fact that a lot of life's problems can be solved by firing shit into the sun.
both are plausible in my book.
I'm still holding out for fusion.
I'm fine with fission power though.
[QUOTE=goon165;21186821]It's not like the moon has an ecosystem we could ruin if something happened. and it's a little know fact that a lot of life's problems can be solved by firing shit into the sun.
both are plausible in my book.[/QUOTE]
In a way, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.
Though I do agree. Both are plausible in my book of Nuclear Communist Power: How To Do Shit.
Nuclear power > Burning oil and shiat!
Nuclear power disasters make great game settings.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwGV9Nl4RjE[/media]
There's one positive thing. :downs:
[QUOTE=Zemog;21187858]Nuclear power disasters make great game settings.
[media][/media]
There's one positive thing. :downs:[/QUOTE]
You picked Call Of Duty over STALKER as an example?
[QUOTE=Ban Evasion Alt;21187975]You picked Call Of Duty over STALKER as an example?[/QUOTE]
Favorite level in single-player in my favorite game - yes, I did pick it over S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
Let's not get derailed now.
[QUOTE=Mr. Kobayashi;21186113]I am doing a report on this to for school and it is literally open at this moment
I emailed Greenpeace about if they would prefer Nuclear or Fossil Fuels
[IMG]http://imgur.com/0Z0z5.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
It's greenpeace, did you expect a sensible answer?
[QUOTE=Mr. Kobayashi;21186113]I am doing a report on this to for school and it is literally open at this moment
I emailed Greenpeace about if they would prefer Nuclear or Fossil Fuels
[IMG_thumb]http://imgur.com/0Z0z5.png[/IMG_thumb][/QUOTE]
what a fucking idiot.
he's acting like nuclear power is as bad as fossil fuels, and just simply using it is blowing up half the planet.
Nuclear power is the way to go, be it fusion or fission both are great. The actual levels of radioactivity from nuclear waste are actually alot less than people think.
In the UK, at the north of scotland (Before we understood radioactivity properly) a nuclear station dumped waste into an abandoned mining shaft for years. Later, it was found some of the waste had seeped into the water and was polluting a beach. There was a huge shit storm about how it's destroying the scottish beaches and wildlife. People went up there and measured the radioactivity of the beaches and found the radioactivity levels had increased, but was still half the natural radioactivity found in cornwall.
Hopefully we will be able to completely leave behind fission and all the risks it contains at some point in the near future. Fusion is far better.
U.S. nuclear policy is improving. If I'm correct, one is being built south of Detroit.
I never actually knew that the power plant's only purpose was to heat water.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
