... to me nuclar power is completly fine... i dont sem to have a problem... its just common people have a frar of mutation and monster and stuff... if properly taken care of they would be okay.... what doyou think
hmmm if you believe so xD hahahaha. it's simply off-topic this topic is more intresting then your ****y town so what do i care about your bullsplatter?
I'm not really sure how all of this works but... I say bad. I'm against anything like that. It's not how our ancestors lived, and they made it along just fine. If they don't need it, we shouldn't either. But then again, we are living in a modern age where things are waaay different, and we need to keep up with it, but then again, we should still stay in touch with our more primitive side so that the past is not lost.... ARG! ARGUING WITH MYSELF!!!
It's not how our ancestors lived, and they made it along just fine.
Our ancestors didn't have a population nearly as large as ours, and also did not use nearly as much energy as the average person today in the UK or US. I believe that nuclear power is the best way to power our countries, at least until some major advances in renewable sources of energy like wind and solar are made. Nuclear produces many times more energy in comparison to space used than renewable sources. It is a finite resource, but does not produce pollution. Every time a disaster like Chernobyl happens, we learn from it and have now figured out how to prevent a disaster like Chernobyl from happening again. The case of ***ushima in Japan was caused by an abnormally powerful earthquake and a series of unlucky coincidences, and was contained effectively, so now nuclear power is mostly safe, especially in countries where natural disasters don't happen.
hmmm if you believe so xD hahahaha. it's simply off-topic this topic is more intresting then your ****y town so what do i care about your bullsplatter?
You are really ruining this thread with your off topic talks. What has your opinion which says that I live in a cr*ppy town has to do with nuclear power. Nuclear power is the best way to date to get power. I mean you couldn't power a city like NY or Hong Kong or Rome with a handful of windmills and the solar thing.
I'm not really sure how all of this works but... I say bad. I'm against anything like that. It's not how our ancestors lived, and they made it along just fine. If they don't need it, we shouldn't either. But then again, we are living in a modern age where things are waaay different, and we need to keep up with it, but then again, we should still stay in touch with our more primitive side so that the past is not lost....
We should remember the past and be mindful of it, but move on. There would be no progress if we decided to revert to a primitive state. Life would be a lot harder. The needs of the population have changed since then.
Every time a disaster like Chernobyl happens, we learn from it and have now figured out how to prevent a disaster like Chernobyl from happening again. The case of ***ushima in Japan was caused by an abnormally powerful earthquake and a series of unlucky coincidences, and was contained effectively, so now nuclear power is mostly safe, especially in countries where natural disasters don't happen.
Every time a catastrophe happens, the administrations raise the security of their plants to the exact level of the catastrophe, to calm down the people, and not a straw higher; they wouldn't want to spend unnecessary money, wouldn't they? When France had to analyze the risks of their plants after ***ushima, they deliberately left out a few criteriums to make the reports look better. And I hardly believe the ***ushima accident was 'contained effectively'. My problem is only partly with the nuclear power itself.. my problem is with those who have that power in their hands, by experience I have absolutely no trust in, for example, Areva in France. And we haven't found a good solution to nuclear waste yet, I mean sure the technology itself, apart from a few risks, is relatively stable, but you can't possibly build more and more power plants, knowing that you don't know what to do with the waste, except bury it somewhere unnoticed, where it will irradiate the environment. We should find a solution to that as soon as possible, whether we go on using nuclear power or not; we do have the waste now, we do need a solution now.
except bury it somewhere unnoticed, where it will irradiate the environment
We don't bury it in unnoticed areas. There are containment facilities that don't have any radiation leaking, and there are underground vaults that are just as effective, furthermore, in some environments, if you can get deep into the layer of rock, you can put the concrete coffin down deep below. Radiating heaps of impermeable rock isn't too destructive as it is.
I do agree with you on some possible fears, though. It scares me to think where nuclear power stations could be placed. Some of the most unstable areas in the world have nuclear power facilities -- and that is a scary thought. The place and the facility need to be well run and maintained and ready for any immediate disaster or risk.
I mean you couldn't power a city like NY or Hong Kong or Rome with a handful of windmills and the solar thing.
That's what I mean. But my hope is that once we find ways to power places like NY/HK/Rome, we can then work towards innovating better longlasting solar panels, and then put all of those on roofs, and find acceptable areas for windmills -- by putting these things at a secondary level, we can hope to greatly reduce our non-renewable energy usage and put less strain on our economy and environment.
It just angers me that there are some people that just want to outright ban the use of nuclear power. In some places, nuclear power is cheaper than importing electricity or burning coal, and it is nice to have every acceptable option on the table. That's all I'm saying.
That's what I mean. But my hope is that once we find ways to power places like NY/HK/Rome, we can then work towards innovating better longlasting solar panels, and then put all of those on roofs, and find acceptable areas for windmills -- by putting these things at a secondary level, we can hope to greatly reduce our non-renewable energy usage and put less strain on our economy and environment.
Or find a way to destroy the waste from nuclear plants. That would be a nice solution.
Or find a way to destroy the waste from nuclear plants. That would be a nice solution.
That's impossible. It goes against the very meaning of nuclear power. If you're referring to nuclear fusion, that doesn't exist, and it does release helium as a waste product [Which we use commercially so it doesn't matter]
i think the other way around is beter. innovating better loglasting solar penals and such. to make a way to power places like ny/hk/rome.
Won't work, because in the meantime, while it takes you however many years it will have to take, these places will be burning even more harmful stuff, such as fossil fuels.
Saying 'Oh, our spot is run 85% on nasty low grade coal ... but we are working on a great solar panel project that does 15% of the work!' By the time we'll get anywhere close to clean, years of uncleanliness would have ensued.
then tell me how can we inproof the alt. energy sources if we are not going to use it? why wold people invest there time and money in creating beter solar penels if they are not going to be used anyway?
and if we are able to provide those big city's whit "green" enrgy then what is there to improof?
it wont go like poof! from this day on we are able to provide those city's whit "green"energy. now we can start improving it.
Good as long as it's well-kept so things like Chernobyl don't happen.
Chernobyl was due to operator error and a pathetically flawed reactor design. American reactors are built using a totally different method, and are as safe as or safer than a typical coal-fired plant.
If something could be done about the waste
Actually, spent nuclear fuel rods can be re-condensed into fuel that can be used again in the reactor. The only reason more places don't is money - it's cheaper (and dumber) to just sock it away and pray nothing happens.
The new player to keep an eye on though is Fusion. It is even safer than nuclear, and there are experiments under way with several forms of fusion power generation.
It is even safer than nuclear, and there are experiments under way with several forms of fusion power generation.
I hear there's only two. One is to push the atoms together by forcing the atoms in using a spinning machine to make a somewhat fake gravity, the other being super-powered lasers firing off of mirrors to center at one point. Either way, I don't think it'll happen soon. There is like zero funding for it and we've been at a dead end for years!
I hear there's only two. One is to push the atoms together by forcing the atoms in using a spinning machine to make a somewhat fake gravity, the other being super-powered lasers firing off of mirrors to center at one point. Either way, I don't think it'll happen soon. There is like zero funding for it and we've been at a dead end for years!
While some of the big-name projects like TOKAMAK were less successful than expected, there are now a host of small, private labs working on new angles for fusion. Popular Mechanics had an article about this a few months ago that outlined some of these efforts.
