[QUOTE=GunFox;17614577]No, you want to help the environment? Turn on more lights.
Yes, you heard me.
Consume so goddamn much power that they are forced to construct nuclear power plants.
Tah dah, near infinite clean energy. I refuse to take a step back technologically because some fucking dipshit hippies who don't understand the difference between nuclear warheads and nuclear power plants block the proliferation of nuclear energy. So I'm going to be the most wasteful prick possible until they shut the fuck up and allow real green energy through.
Hydro electric obliterates river ecosystems and wind turbines kill all kinds of birds all day long and then continue to murder bats by night. Solar panels require massive massive amounts of empty land to produce even remotely useful amounts of energy effectively destroying a much larger footprint.
Not that I really give a shit if some fish die or birds get turned into nuggets. I'm just pointing out that comparatively, nuclear energy does none of these things. If we could finally move forward, nuclear waste would all be stored in a single location for the entire united states, the place has been under construction for years now. The nuclear power plants take up relatively small amounts of space and only need a supply of water to run.
And no, they don't produce radioactive chemicals into the surrounding area. Coal plants however spew out substantial amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere.
And no, radioactive waste is generally not useful for a bomb. There are breeder reactors which produce weapons grade material, but that was intentional. Yes, you can make a dirty bomb. No dirty bombs actually aren't all that dangerous. The explosive used to disperse the dirty bomb would kill ten fold the number of people the radiation could even give mild radiation sickness to. And generally the explosion isn't actually going to kill much of anyone.[/QUOTE]
I'll give it about an hour before some ill informed dipshit brings up the Chernobyl NPP incident and why it's the reason we shouldn't build thermonuclear reactors.
Buy blood powered lamp.
[b]Become Emo to light your home.[/b]
[QUOTE=GunFox;17614577]-Usfg get me some nuclear power-[/QUOTE]
Nuclear power plants are dangerous if not regulated, and the more there are the less easy it is to regulate them, besides,15% of our electricity already comes from them. Theres a three pronged problem with your idea.
1.) Uranium -2whatever is the only type of uranium that can be used for nuclear power. That means it isn't renewable. Yes, you can use nuclear reprocessing to turn some of the older stuff into a barely workable form again, but once you use it you can't go back.
2.) Uranium is extremely radioactive, so they store used uranium in a giant hold underwater. However, this is just filling up space, just putting the shit we take out back into the ground. It's like a landfill if radioactive mush.
3.) If a terrorist attacks a nuclear plant, its like they just set off an atomic bomb.
[QUOTE=Neolk;17614616]3.) If a terrorist attacks a nuclear plant, its like they just set off an atomic bomb.[/QUOTE]
You best be trollin.
Also trying to figure out why the hell anyone would buy one of these instead of the light bulb on the shelf next to it.
[QUOTE=GunFox;17614577]No, you want to help the environment? Turn on more lights.
Yes, you heard me.
Consume so goddamn much power that they are forced to construct nuclear power plants.
Tah dah, near infinite clean energy. I refuse to take a step back technologically because some fucking dipshit hippies who don't understand the difference between nuclear warheads and nuclear power plants block the proliferation of nuclear energy. So I'm going to be the most wasteful prick possible until they shut the fuck up and allow real green energy through.
Hydro electric obliterates river ecosystems and wind turbines kill all kinds of birds all day long and then continue to murder bats by night. Solar panels require massive massive amounts of empty land to produce even remotely useful amounts of energy effectively destroying a much larger footprint.
Not that I really give a shit if some fish die or birds get turned into nuggets. I'm just pointing out that comparatively, nuclear energy does none of these things. If we could finally move forward, nuclear waste would all be stored in a single location for the entire united states, the place has been under construction for years now. The nuclear power plants take up relatively small amounts of space and only need a supply of water to run.
And no, they don't produce radioactive chemicals into the surrounding area. Coal plants however spew out substantial amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere.
And no, radioactive waste is generally not useful for a bomb. There are breeder reactors which produce weapons grade material, but that was intentional. Yes, you can make a dirty bomb. No dirty bombs actually aren't all that dangerous. The explosive used to disperse the dirty bomb would kill ten fold the number of people the radiation could even give mild radiation sickness to. And generally the explosion isn't actually going to kill much of anyone.[/QUOTE]
I didn't read all of that, but in order to seem intelligent, I shall rate you agree.
What a moron.
[QUOTE=GunFox;17614577]No, you want to help the environment? Turn on more lights.
Yes, you heard me.
Consume so goddamn much power that they are forced to construct nuclear power plants.
Tah dah, near infinite clean energy. I refuse to take a step back technologically because some fucking dipshit hippies who don't understand the difference between nuclear warheads and nuclear power plants block the proliferation of nuclear energy. So I'm going to be the most wasteful prick possible until they shut the fuck up and allow real green energy through.
Hydro electric obliterates river ecosystems and wind turbines kill all kinds of birds all day long and then continue to murder bats by night. Solar panels require massive massive amounts of empty land to produce even remotely useful amounts of energy effectively destroying a much larger footprint.
Not that I really give a shit if some fish die or birds get turned into nuggets. I'm just pointing out that comparatively, nuclear energy does none of these things. If we could finally move forward, nuclear waste would all be stored in a single location for the entire united states, the place has been under construction for years now. The nuclear power plants take up relatively small amounts of space and only need a supply of water to run.
And no, they don't produce radioactive chemicals into the surrounding area. Coal plants however spew out substantial amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere.
And no, radioactive waste is generally not useful for a bomb. There are breeder reactors which produce weapons grade material, but that was intentional. Yes, you can make a dirty bomb. No dirty bombs actually aren't all that dangerous. The explosive used to disperse the dirty bomb would kill ten fold the number of people the radiation could even give mild radiation sickness to. And generally the explosion isn't actually going to kill much of anyone.[/QUOTE]
Oh my God I love you, that sounded like exactly something I would say.
Actually the creator is a warlock trying trying to create blood bonds with as many people as he can so that he never ages or dies :D
save energy buy a few hundred
completely kosher
[img]http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2158911/2159086/2159087/070221_CL_HitlerEX.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=GunFox;17614577]No, you want to help the environment? Turn on more lights.
Yes, you heard me.
Consume so goddamn much power that they are forced to construct nuclear power plants.
Tah dah, near infinite clean energy. I refuse to take a step back technologically because some fucking dipshit hippies who don't understand the difference between nuclear warheads and nuclear power plants block the proliferation of nuclear energy. So I'm going to be the most wasteful prick possible until they shut the fuck up and allow real green energy through.
Hydro electric obliterates river ecosystems and wind turbines kill all kinds of birds all day long and then continue to murder bats by night. Solar panels require massive massive amounts of empty land to produce even remotely useful amounts of energy effectively destroying a much larger footprint.
Not that I really give a shit if some fish die or birds get turned into nuggets. I'm just pointing out that comparatively, nuclear energy does none of these things. If we could finally move forward, nuclear waste would all be stored in a single location for the entire united states, the place has been under construction for years now. The nuclear power plants take up relatively small amounts of space and only need a supply of water to run.
And no, they don't produce radioactive chemicals into the surrounding area. Coal plants however spew out substantial amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere.
And no, radioactive waste is generally not useful for a bomb. There are breeder reactors which produce weapons grade material, but that was intentional. Yes, you can make a dirty bomb. No dirty bombs actually aren't all that dangerous. The explosive used to disperse the dirty bomb would kill ten fold the number of people the radiation could even give mild radiation sickness to. And generally the explosion isn't actually going to kill much of anyone.[/QUOTE]
Now that's an argument I can't disagree with...
Just one question: would there be any way to leach the radiation out of radioactive waste, and convert it into electricity? I think we've got things that can detect gamma radiation, don't we? And the way we use machines to detect things is where the detected energy is converted into electrical energy which is used to read the levels of energy, am I right?
Well, if there is such a gamma ray -> electrical transducive material, then we could use the radiation as a power source.
Pretty handy during a blackout :downs:
[QUOTE=zorkypoo;17615636]Pretty handy during a blackout :downs:[/QUOTE]
You could use all the blood you've shed by bumping into sharp things in the dark to power your lamp. Wonderful!
I find it interesting that we love reading, watching movies about, and playing games that take place in fantasy worlds, yet in our real world we have [b]things that glow by putting blood in them.[/b]
New theory: The Oblivion universe is the real one and we're all just part of some mage's dream.
[QUOTE=GunFox;17614577]No, you want to help the environment? Turn on more lights.
Yes, you heard me.
Consume so goddamn much power that they are forced to construct nuclear power plants.
Tah dah, near infinite clean energy. I refuse to take a step back technologically because some fucking dipshit hippies who don't understand the difference between nuclear warheads and nuclear power plants block the proliferation of nuclear energy. So I'm going to be the most wasteful prick possible until they shut the fuck up and allow real green energy through.
Hydro electric obliterates river ecosystems and wind turbines kill all kinds of birds all day long and then continue to murder bats by night. Solar panels require massive massive amounts of empty land to produce even remotely useful amounts of energy effectively destroying a much larger footprint.
Not that I really give a shit if some fish die or birds get turned into nuggets. I'm just pointing out that comparatively, nuclear energy does none of these things. If we could finally move forward, nuclear waste would all be stored in a single location for the entire united states, the place has been under construction for years now. The nuclear power plants take up relatively small amounts of space and only need a supply of water to run.
And no, they don't produce radioactive chemicals into the surrounding area. Coal plants however spew out substantial amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere.
And no, radioactive waste is generally not useful for a bomb. There are breeder reactors which produce weapons grade material, but that was intentional. Yes, you can make a dirty bomb. No dirty bombs actually aren't all that dangerous. The explosive used to disperse the dirty bomb would kill ten fold the number of people the radiation could even give mild radiation sickness to. And generally the explosion isn't actually going to kill much of anyone.[/QUOTE]
Why are you speaking about me?
[QUOTE=Neolk;17614616]Nuclear power plants are dangerous if not regulated, and the more there are the less easy it is to regulate them, besides,15% of our electricity already comes from them. Theres a three pronged problem with your idea.
1.) Uranium -2whatever is the only type of uranium that can be used for nuclear power. That means it isn't renewable. Yes, you can use nuclear reprocessing to turn some of the older stuff into a barely workable form again, but once you use it you can't go back.
2.) Uranium is extremely radioactive, so they store used uranium in a giant hold underwater. However, this is just filling up space, just putting the shit we take out back into the ground. It's like a landfill if radioactive mush.
3.) If a terrorist attacks a nuclear plant, its like they just set off an atomic bomb.[/QUOTE]
1) Uranium isn't the only source of energy. There are several suitable radioactive sources available.
There is a type of reactor called a "breeder" reactor, which actually PRODUCES more radioactive material (fissile) than it consumes. The material is produces, with basic refinement, can then be used as a power source. Yes. We can MAKE fuel by USING fuel. Are you starting to understand why this is fucking awesome?
Beyond that, the Indians actually have a program nearing completion to use Thorium in place of Uranium, Plutonium, or other less common elements. Thorium is relatively easy to obtain and there is substantially more of it available than Uranium.
2) The spent fuel material will eventually be sent to a massive underground vault being constructed inside a mountain in the Midwest. It is specifically designed to safely house radioactive waste and is far outside the water table. The problem however is funding. People don't like that radioactive material would be shipped so far and it has severely damaged the progression of the project. Never mind the fact that the storage tanks they ship them in are so obscenely resilient that a rocket powered train wreck couldn't even dent them. Seriously. They tried. Multiple times. Same tank.
3) NO NO NO AND NO. First of all, we currently have power plants literally from the 60's and 70's. They have been retrofitted to be nearly impossible to make even go close to critical. MODERN designs (The French apparently in particular have some cool ones) make it impossible without substantial intentional modifications.
Plus a terrorist attack on a power plant would require a substantial force capable of overwhelming the on site armed security. Yes. They have security forces. Generally assault rifle toting private security forces are garrisoned there. And then once they have overwhelmed the security guards, they have to get into the plant, past the guards, and do their dirty deed before the police arrive MINUTES later. Or if it is determined that they mean to do something REALLY naughty, the alert fighters stationed nearby are scrambled to destroy the place with an airstrike. Again, yes, there are fighter aircraft on the tarmac at all times waiting. And no, destroying the plant in an airstrike would not cause some giant nuclear detonation. It would likely incinerate just about anything that escaped.
Or if that was above your head, how about the simple fact that I'm not going to change my life because of terrorists? IF YOU CHANGE YOUR LIFE BECAUSE OF TERRORISM, THEN THEY HAVE WON. THAT WAS THE GOAL. It's in the NAME. TERRORism. The point is to spread fear. Terror even. I don't know why I even bother. No matter how many times I explain it, nobody ever understands it.
[editline]12:28PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Smirnoff Joe;17615583]Now that's an argument I can't disagree with...
Just one question: would there be any way to leach the radiation out of radioactive waste, and convert it into electricity? I think we've got things that can detect gamma radiation, don't we? And the way we use machines to detect things is where the detected energy is converted into electrical energy which is used to read the levels of energy, am I right?
Well, if there is such a gamma ray -> electrical transducive material, then we could use the radiation as a power source.[/QUOTE]
Yeah read above. We actually used to have experimental reactors doing just that.
Breeder reactors intentionally make their waste usable. Effectively producing more material which can be used for energy.
In fact weapons grade plutonium can be generated as one of the possible waste types for thermal neutron reactor breeders. The bulk of plutonium used in weapons comes from just that. The United States had a couple of breeder reactors for that purpose.
Don't forget that, with current projections, we have 5 BILLION years worth of Uranium-238 (comprises 99.7% of all Uranium on Earth), instead of the Uranium-235 (.3% of all Uranium on Earth) that we are currently using. And we are talking about good, clean energy that loses it's dangerous levels of waste decay within decades, not centuries.
That's not even counting Thorium, which is far more plentiful then Uranium anyway.
People are stuck in their ways, they refuse to realize that, believe it or not, the "Demon Standard Fuels" such as Coal, Oil, and Nuclear have actually caught up with the times.
I mean Jesus, with nuclear energy and the quickly advancing car battery tech (Something like 2 years from a battery capable of 500 mile trips.) like 95% of emissions would be gone completely.
Before anyone goes all "bah internal combustion is way cooler I'll never give it up" know that you can actually get WAY more power out of electric motors. You have to electronically nerf the torque because they are capable of snapping the axel like a twig. Not to mention the limit to RPMs of an electric motor is limited only by the materials it is constructed with. And this torque can be applied at any time. Going 60 and want to be going 90? Hit the accelerator and slam back into the seat.
EDIT:
And saying "Fuck you, we don't need your shit" to OPEC leaders would be satisfying beyond words.
And then cutting off all their limbs and throwing them into a pool of salt water.
[QUOTE=GunFox;17617664]I mean Jesus, with nuclear energy and the quickly advancing car battery tech (Something like 2 years from a battery capable of 500 mile trips.) like 95% of emissions would be gone completely.
Before anyone goes all "bah internal combustion is way cooler I'll never give it up" know that you can actually get WAY more power out of electric motors. You have to electronically nerf the torque because they are capable of snapping the axel like a twig. Not to mention the limit to RPMs of an electric motor is limited only by the materials it is constructed with. And this torque can be applied at any time. Going 60 and want to be going 90? Hit the accelerator and slam back into the seat.
EDIT:
And saying "Fuck you, we don't need your shit" to OPEC leaders would be satisfying beyond words.
And then cutting off all their limbs and throwing them into a pool of salt water.[/QUOTE]
The main problem is that people fail to see how that's renewable and sustainable, they see it as, "Eventually it will run out, we need limitless energy!" Which is a horrible way of seeing it, since we have resources that, while not limitless, very well will last us easily longer then there was life on Earth.
I like you, GunFox.
[QUOTE=GunFox;17614577]Tah dah, near infinite clean energy.[/QUOTE]
only thing wrong in your argument
radioactive elements are not renewable
it will run out after prolonged use. UN estimates project the population to reach 10 billion by 2075, mostly in urban centers. That's a lot of required energy. Energy use will skyrocket because of the increased need. Population and energy consumption will only continue to rise.
I agree with the argument, we need to use nuclear power as it's far cleaner if treated properly afterward. It's just not a long term solution.
[QUOTE=BricknHead;17617855]only thing wrong in your argument
radioactive elements are not renewable
it will run out after prolonged use. UN estimates project the population to reach 10 billion by 2075, mostly in urban centers. That's a lot of required energy. Energy use will skyrocket because of the increased need. Wind Turbines and Solar Panels provide energy from renewable resources.
I agree with the argument, we need to use nuclear power as it's far cleaner if treated properly afterward. It's just not a long term solution.[/QUOTE]
He mentioned it in his post up top, but he didn't point out that the number takes into consideration population growth. We seriously, with current tech, thorium not included, have the energy to continue for five billion years.
FIVE BILLION YEARS. The planet EARTH has been around for roughly only 4.54 billion years.
In that time we will either kill each other off entirely or develop space travel. Giving us access to near infinite resources.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;17617785]The main problem is that people fail to see how that's renewable and sustainable, they see it as, "Eventually it will run out, we need limitless energy!" Which is a horrible way of seeing it, since we have resources that, while not limitless, very well will last us easily longer then there was life on Earth.[/QUOTE]
resources really aren't as abundant as you think
the amount of gold in the world is only about 80ft cubed. If you think about it, that's a fucking small amount
[editline]01:14PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;17617934]He mentioned it in his post up top, but he didn't point out that the number takes into consideration population growth. We seriously, with current tech, thorium not included, have the energy to continue for five billion years.
FIVE BILLION YEARS. The planet EARTH has been around for roughly only 4.54 billion years.
In that time we will either kill each other off entirely or develop space travel. Giving us access to near infinite resources.[/QUOTE]
if you've got sources for this shit linkme
[editline]01:15PM[/editline]
also didn't read that post
[QUOTE=BricknHead;17617965]resources really aren't as abundant as you think
the amount of gold in the world is only about 80ft cubed. If you think about it, that's a fucking small amount
[editline]01:14PM[/editline]
if you've got sources for this shit linkme
[editline]01:15PM[/editline]
also didn't read that post[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-238#Breeder_reactors[/url]
I know it's Wikipedia, but the only pages that are prone to being incorrect are the Celebrity pages, usually.
I like the idea, it's pretty awesome. But the point behind it is shite.
A drop of blood. Yeah, oh lord, how am I going to get that?
cutting my finger!? THAT'S BARBARIC!
I mean fucking hell, there's enough dissolved Uranium in SEAWATER to provide us currently with 7 Million years of energy (not factoring in population growth, in which case it would only last maybe 80,000 years or less, again, longer then there has been Civilization.)
What was the creator called? M. E. Stopholes?
Now this is art I can get in to!
So what would I get for dumping all the blood from some man I saw on the street?
[QUOTE=The Inzuki;17622896]So what would I get for dumping all the blood from some man I saw on the street?[/QUOTE]
A murder charge.
Great, my nose bleeds shall not go unpaid!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
