Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

Nuclear Power posted 14 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by mr nobuddy, Candidate

I'm not sure wether or not this should be here or in the off-topic forum, but anyway. What do you think of nuclear power? Should all power plants be shut down, or should cars run on them?

Personally:

If there is one source of energy that's clean CO2-wise and still has exellent energy output, it's nuclear power. I wasn't around for Chernobyl, so I have never been a part of the mass-hysteria, but in 50 years of nuclear power usage, we -meaning humanity- have only had 1 explosion. Granted,that one explosion created enormous damage, but that's why we have safety measures.

I feel like nuclear power is the big boogy man of environmentalists -apart from global warming, which is a serious problem as well, but no part of this discussion.- It has exellent revenue, but people seem so scared of the accidents that can happen that they want it out, no matter what the positive sides it has.

And, no. I don't feel like cars should run on nuclear power. It's too unsafe for that. But power plants? Why not? view post


Nuclear Power posted 15 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by Warrior-Poet, Moderator

Well I really didn't like hearing that a power plant on the Hudson has been leaking radioactive waste into the river since August and we are just now being told. view post


Nuclear Power posted 15 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by Edge of Certainty, Subdidact

I like what Jon Stewart said about it, &quot;...cut the atom this way, give power to the entire world, cut it the other way, blow the s*** out of it.&quot; But I agree, nuclear power is one of the better, less expensive forms of energy. ANd sure, it has its cons, but what energy source doesn't? As for cars, the idea of running on corn is pretty entertaining. <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) --> view post


Nuclear Power posted 15 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by unJon, Auditor

Nuclear power is the future of this world, no matter what people think of it. It's a simple matter of oil running out and nuclear being the only available cost-effective solution. Econ 101. view post


Nuclear Power posted 15 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by Peter, Auditor

Actually, I'd go more with Fusion power rather than Fission... only seventy years away now (although apparently they were saying seventy years in the 1980s). After all no waste that we need to deal with which is really expensive, and I think also more efficient energywise (once we get cold fusion that is).

Also, Chernobyl isn't the only nuclear accident, there have been at least two in the States as well, although much less well publicised (one at Three Mile Island and the other I forget) and in fairness an accident in a nuclear power plant is worse than one in a coal plant etc. view post


Nuclear Power posted 15 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by mr nobuddy, Candidate

I didn't know that there had been in the US as well...

As to fusion, perhaps this is interesting:

[url:1et155bl]http&#58;//antwrp&#46;gsfc&#46;nasa&#46;gov/apod/ap060313&#46;html[/url:1et155bl]

the unexpected powerful contained explosion, the Z machine released about 80 times the world's entire electrical power usage for a brief fraction of a second


If you can somehow storage that amount of power, we'd have a major breakthrough! Then again, if this energy was converted into an explosion ... view post


Nuclear Power posted 15 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by Warrior-Poet, Moderator

Yah i saw the thing on the Z machine very interesting stuff. view post


Nuclear Power posted 16 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by Sokar, Auditor

the unexpected powerful contained explosion, the Z machine released about 80 times the world's entire electrical power usage for a brief fraction of a second


Well there goes the nuclear power being the most efficient, or future of energy supply, arguments.

Next to good literature I read, I also read some crap like Dan Brown and his Bernini Mystery (I think the English title is Angels and Demons, though it makes much less sense). Here in his facts he states the anti-matter, which, he says, has no pollution and has a 100% !!! percent efficiency, compared to nuclear power that has 1.5%. I don't know much about physics and his explanation about it are really vague, and even wrong probably, but if such is possible, I would say we will be having no trouble with enenrgy soon enough... Oh and it also has a high risk, but these are usually irrelevant. view post


Nuclear Power posted 16 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by gierra, Sorcerer-of-Rank

i'm kind of split on the issue. looking back at chernobyl obviously raises the concerns of something like that happening again. however, science has evolved a hell of a lot within the last 50 years, and i think nuclear power would be a lot safer nowadays.

i was born in pickering, ontario, where there is a nuclear plant, but i never really knew much about.


however, i think there are way better alternatives, and that nuclear power is only part of the future energy needs.

for example, denmark has been investing in a lot of windmills. something like that has a huge start up cost, but it eventually pays for itself. when the world runs out of oil and coal, the danes will be laughing their asses off at us, cos they will be basically self sufficient. i think more nations definitely shold be looking into wind powered generators, as well as solar powered ones. if they start phasing these things in now, by the time we truly need them they will be there. view post


Nuclear Power posted 16 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by Edge of Certainty, Subdidact

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!! and it's pronounced nu-kwee-lur! sorry, had to say that. You know, I was surprised to find out that America gets most of its oil from Canada.....watch out, Bush just might find weapons of mass destruction in toronto <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: --> view post


Nuclear Power posted 16 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by gierra, Sorcerer-of-Rank

and yet canada still imports most of its oil! i just don;t understand. view post


Nuclear Power posted 17 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by Edge of Certainty, Subdidact

yeah <!-- s:? --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_confused.gif" alt=":?" title="Confused" /><!-- s:? --> , that doesn't make much sense. then again, neither does continually using an energy source that will inevitably deplete and muck up the eco system....but like my good buddy GW Bush says, &quot;It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.&quot; <!-- s:roll: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_rolleyes.gif" alt=":roll:" title="Rolling Eyes" /><!-- s:roll: --> view post


Nuclear Power posted 17 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by Warrior-Poet, Moderator

&quot;It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.&quot;


I thought that former VP Dan Quayle was the one who said that. view post


Nuclear Power posted 17 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by neongrey, Peralogue

Quote: &quot;Edge of Certainty&quot;:3l136l1l
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!! and it's pronounced nu-kwee-lur! sorry, had to say that. You know, I was surprised to find out that America gets most of its oil from Canada.....watch out, Bush just might find weapons of mass destruction in toronto <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: -->[/quote:3l136l1l]

Alberta, that's where most of the oil comes from. So... Calgary, maybe.

Mind, being a good, red-blooded non-torontonian, I would certainly not mind if Toronto got blown up... <!-- s:P --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_razz.gif" alt=":P" title="Razz" /><!-- s:P --> view post


Nuclear Power posted 17 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by Edge of Certainty, Subdidact

*shrugs* was it? idk, I found it on one of those bushisms sites...It's very........enlightening, whoever did day it was a pure genius <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: --> . view post


Nuclear Power posted 17 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by Warrior-Poet, Moderator

Mind, being a good, red-blooded non-torontonian, I would certainly not mind if Toronto got blown up...


Hey i would watch out making comments like that I think theres enough canadians here who wouldnt like that idea at all. <!-- s:P --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_razz.gif" alt=":P" title="Razz" /><!-- s:P --> view post


Nuclear Power posted 17 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by Randal, Auditor

Windmills are butt-ugly, they really ruin the landscape. They're not a very reliable source of power either, you'll still need a backup powerplant for when there isn't any wind. You also need tons of them for our modern power needs.

Solar energy seems like a better bet to me... they're already making cells that during daylight hours even if it's clouded or rainy. Not economically viable yet, but we're getting there. Less ugly, too.

Nuclear energy seems like the best bet for the moment, but I just read about a M.I.T. report that concluded nuclear power shouldn't be used at the moment, or only used in the least efficient way possible with un-enriched unranium, because they fear terrorists getting their hands on plutionium otherwise...

That makes no sense whatsoever to me. Surely we can't let our economy be crippled by the sheer potential of a terrorist attack? And surely even if we don't build uranium enriching plants, people could get plutionium from Russia or somewhere? view post


Nuclear Power posted 17 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by Edge of Certainty, Subdidact

I agree, windmills are big and distract from the landscape (tho I've always dreamed of strapping myself to one and...nevermind). I like what you said, tho, &quot;we're getting there.&quot; I think that that's a good attitude when thinking of any energy source. It seems the mass tendency is to think that we can only go downhill from here when it comes to energy, but we just need to give some of our options time to grow (except for oil). Until then, I haven't paid my electricity bill and the power won't come on so I could care less whether or not we have an abundant supply of energy in the near future. Rough it, I say <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: --> . view post


Nuclear Power posted 17 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by gierra, Sorcerer-of-Rank

i disagree about windmills being an eyesore. a few years ago i went over to sweden, and had a stop-over in denmark. with the plane flying so low over denmark you could see all the windmills just off the coast, rows and rows of them, and i thought it looked awesome!


i suppose you find coolling towers more attractive?

anyways, wind powered generators are not the solution, they are imply part of the solution. we should be looking into using all kinds of clean energy sources, from wind, to sun, to ethanol and hydrogen fuel cells.

fuck oil and coal. they're so primitive. view post


Nuclear Power posted 17 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by Randal, Auditor

I'd argue oil actually is one of the greatest energy sources out there... you can simply pump it up from the ground and burn it! Cheap, reliable, effective, versatile, used in thousands of chemicals and synthethic materials... oil's the greatest thing since the invention of alcohol! If anything gave us the world we have now... it's oil.

Our civilisation is distinguished from previous ones by one thing only: we no longer rely for our power needs on the muscle of man and beast. All else is contingent. And oil is what made it happen.

Problem is, we're running out. If not for that one, our economy would continue to be oil-based for centuries. Unless they finally get the fushion thang working. view post


Nuclear Power posted 17 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by gierra, Sorcerer-of-Rank

i think the bigger problem is that after centuries of burning coal and oil, we're about to suffocate ourselves with pollutants..

just cos something makes our lives easier, does not mean t's the best choice.


cheap, reliable, effective, versatiler, killing us. hmm, sounds like a good deal to me. view post


Nuclear Power posted 17 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by Edge of Certainty, Subdidact

yeah, oil got us to where we are now, there's no denying that, but obviously, if we wanted to stay where we are, we wouldn't be discussing this. Oh, and there's no invention better than alcohol, I just thought I'd clear that up. <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: --> view post


Nuclear Power posted 17 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by H, Auditor

Wouldn't alcohol be a discovery not an invention? <!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) --> view post


Nuclear Power posted 17 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by gierra, Sorcerer-of-Rank

Quote: &quot;Edge of Certainty&quot;:1lfxfhoz
Oh, and there's no invention better than alcohol, I just thought I'd clear that up. <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: -->[/quote:1lfxfhoz]

i certainly agree there.

now, despite my hatred for st. patrick, i'm gonna go get some guinness on my way home. view post


Nuclear Power posted 17 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by Edge of Certainty, Subdidact

haha, I completely forgot it was st. patrick day! Too bad I can't afford beer... <!-- s:cry: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_cry.gif" alt=":cry:" title="Crying or Very sad" /><!-- s:cry: -->

discover, invention, all the same to me, just another somthing that I can't buy. <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: -->

oh, and I read an article on wikipedia about anti-matter...don't really understand it, but thumbs up anyway! view post


Nuclear Power posted 17 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by Warrior-Poet, Moderator

Yeah I forgot also, Happy Saint Patricks Day everybody view post


Nuclear Power posted 18 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by Randal, Auditor

What the hell is saint Patrick's day anyway? Even google went all green and fuzzy...

Anyway, anti-matter is a nice dream, but for the moment no more than that, I think. From what I recall, laboratories can produce one or two atoms and hold them stable in extremely strong electromagnetic fields only. There's no way to generate the stuff that doesn't take more energy than it would produce, and no way to store it in a usable form, as far as I'm aware. (of course, this is from the top of my head and may be completely wrong)

Fusion is a better bet, I think. It may not have a 100% conversion rate, but it's plenty good regardless. Deuterium isn't a rare resource, fusion power would keep the light bulbs lit well past the next millennium.

As for oil causing pollution... well, not as much as coal. And we're making far less polluting engines nowadays than we did three decades ago. (except in America, where everyone still drives gas-guzzling tanks for no good reason I can discern...) view post


Nuclear Power posted 18 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by Edge of Certainty, Subdidact

<!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing" /><!-- s:lol: --> yeah, here in America we have our heads so far up our asses that we can't even smell the pollution, seriously. Well, so much for anti-matter...I still wana ride a windmill <!-- s:cry: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_cry.gif" alt=":cry:" title="Crying or Very sad" /><!-- s:cry: --> that'll never happen anytime soon. I agree with gierra, tho..we need to utilize everything, and do so efficiently. With so many different choices in energy sources, the only excuse America has for still using oil is because of the money we make off the oil industry.

As for saint patricks day, it's the day when saint patty popped all the pimples off of his face. hehe, chasing snakes... view post


Nuclear Power posted 20 March 2006 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by gierra, Sorcerer-of-Rank

st. patrick was a welshman who coverted ireland to christianity and drove out all the pagans (snakes/serpents).

he is now celebrated by getting raucoussly drunk.


i may have some irish in me, but i despise st patrick and all that he stands fo.


but i did buy some irish whiskey for the first time. as a scot, i'm still biased as to who makes the best whiskies, but it wasn;t so bad. view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown