Page 5 - Nuclear Power

WTF, someone else apparently posted, and deleted. Oh well, sorry.

Too late ! this is month old thread and in the middtime world was blown away..

shame, damn shame...

Switzerland . almost 100% hydroelectric, and they even have enough to flog to the Italians too .

pity it ruins so many paddling rivers

however Bushy boy has been saying that Oil is the past, and that the US should move on. that won't go down well when he get's home

I can see it now "DADDY IM HOME FROM DEH WHITE HOUSE!"

"son, come here"

"yes, daddy"

"now son why would you go and do a dumbshit thing like that?"

"what do you mean daddy"

(by this time his daddy is drunk and is spanking bush"

"IM SORRY DADDY IM SORRY!"

edit: it's just a joke...lol....

EDIT: you're serious?!!

of course not.

LOl, I was at an anti-Bush "Drown out the State of the Union" gathering at a local club last night. I doubled over laughing when I heard him say that we need to reduce dependence on oil. I know we all know, so I won't even go into all the reasons why that was the biggest b ullshit comment of the speech.

Wow, what an idea. First you conquer Iraq and than you switch away from oil based production.

nuclear, hydrogen and alcohol is the way forward for the world.

Since they have made a huge technology boost in nuclear technology - safety wise and less radiation leaks, and they will move on soon to making nuclear plants like the sun - burning helium and hydrogen. Alcohol is a very good feul, as you can make loads, and when you burn you get almost the same ammount of energy as from fossil fuels - petrol, and it releases no pollution.

An interesting artical i came accross was the burning of sewage. As sewage has alot of methane in it and alot of ingredients such as sugars, waste products we dont need which burn well and release alot of energy. the burning of sewage releases no pollution, and releases alot of energy. it stops pollution of seas, depending if the country releases it into the sea, and it gets rid of waste.

i also read recently about pumping co2 into the ground, with hydrogen, at high temperatures at alot of pressure will recreate fossil fuels, at a very fast rate, giving other generations another source of energy. although they are going to do this, some people see no point as it would be just releasing pollution back into the atmosphere. another interesting thing i read was about coal stations having electric-static plates attached on the top of the funnels which release co2 which would attract alot of it, which stops it from being released into the atmosphere.

Its been said that in energy technology wise, the world has not advanced enough to have a sustainable energy source, its a big problem of today which needs solving. if its not solved soon theres going to get alot of problems on this planet, such as extreme hot - cold weather, freak weather, water levels rising etc.

Some college students nearby have started a bioethanol fueling station, and a local brewery has a delivery truck that runs on leftover grese and oil from their production.

Yeah I agree that would be a great idea. Think about how big Walmart is. If they had solar panels on the roof they could save a ton of energy.



Well that can be a good thing. I mean if there's demand for something then there's a market and somebody will invest in it.

I think nuclear energy would be great (and BTW Bush is pushing for more nuclear energy). We need to imporve security by a ton. We also need to to find a way to reuse the nuclear waste.

Right now I am currently researching on a device that will make a v8 get around 100mpg. It's been invented before but the oil industry hold the patents and doesn't want them to get out.

i think most of the world should go nuclear - such as western countries with big populations, and which demand that ammount of energy. also i think that poorer countries should have access to nuclear power via other countries, so that it saves the poorer countries money.

although there is alot of controversy over Iran having nuclear energy, in my opinion i think they shouldnt be allowed.

Although my opinion is harsh, Iran is ignoring the UN and the nuclear watchdog, i am confused as to why Iran is being so stuburn and determined to have nuclear energy, its not like they need it as they have the world's biggest oil reserve. I do not like the idea of middle eastern countries (except israel) having nuclear energy, as if you look at their history it is very violent, and giving them radioactive materials is just a stupid thing.

i also beleive that nuclear energy should only be a temporary sorce or energy. i beleive that the world should radically research into reuseable energy sources, before using up the non renewable sources. Also, with all non renewable sources, there is always consequences, such as with nuclear energy - radiation leaks and radioactive waste, and with oil - global warming.

focil fuels are as good as gone.

and even if they do find massive fields beneath the tundra, it isn't a good thing!

i think your right, nuke should be used as a bridge between coal/gas/oil based consumption and something else.

Nuclear power plants are very expensive to build. They can only recoup these cost with paying customers. Who is going to pay for the electricity you want to give away. Also, who is going to pay for the extensive infrastructure of power lines to distribute this free electricity. Of course this assumes that the people even need electricity. If the people do not have electrical appliances do you propose we give them these also so they have something to plug in.

I agree with you but you do not say why. Of course Iran does not need nuclear power. They simply want the nuclear byproducts to produce atomic bombs. This is the same reason North Korea wanted nuclear power. Both countries use their nuclear stick to threaten and intimidate their enemies. We better hope terrorists do not get a hold of any of these weapons.

Scientists are hoping that someday nuclear fusion becomes practical. That way we could retire all of the much more dangerous current fission plants.

Today for large scale energy production nuclear power is the only real alternative to fossil fuels. If you think nuclear power is dangerous you ought to look at how dangerous fossil fuels are to the environment and to people's health. If proper safeguards are met then nuclear power is much better for the environment than even fossil fuels.

Don't get me started with global warming. The jury is still out on whether global warming is even a long term threat to the environment. We have only been measuring the weather worldwide less than 100 years. How are we to know what is normal? Take a look at the crazy weather in Europe in the 19th century. It even snowed in July one year. Nobody knows what caused that. Sure there are factors that humans have introduced that affect the weather. We can't even agree how much that is. Then there are the cycles that the weather seems to have that have been around for much longer than we have.