View Poll Results: Do you support Nuclear energy?

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • Can i hug the reactor?

    5 26.32%
  • I seriosly support it

    7 36.84%
  • I nuetral

    4 21.05%
  • I Hate it

    3 15.79%
  • I'll commit siucide if another is built

    0 0%
Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1

    Nuclear Energy Debate

    Ok i know this will be a mile long thread


    Nuclear energy is cheap and it releases less radiationt hen then coal (coal releases radioactive argon gasses), A nuclear power plant cannot blow up in a nuclear explosion, only steam, also there has never been a meltdown, 3 mile islands secondary cooling system shut it down, chernobyl had a steam explosion which shut it down.


    And the steam explosion at cherobyl occured because stupid engineers were doing stupid tests.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    5,137
    I want Fusion Nuclear Plant! Fission is just too old
    Fluid Hosting, LLC - HSphere Shared and Reseller hosting - Now with HIGH AVAILABILITY
    Fluid VPS - Linux and Windows Virtuozzo VPS - Enterprise VPS with up to 2 GB guaranteed memory!
    Get your N+1 High Availability Enterprise Cloud
    Equinix Secaucus NY2 (NYC Metro)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    231
    When mankind can achieve nuclear fussion we probably would have already been wiped out by another Chernobyl or the super nova of our sun.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    5,137
    How so? Nuclear Fusion is coming. The Tokamak Fusion Power has reported generate power out enough to break even with the power in. It's progressing and I hope to see it before I am old

    But actually, Nuclear Fusion too is rather old. Hm ... I want power harnessed from anti-particle! 1 gram of anti hydrogen will generate enough power to run a car for 100000 years! Now, that's power!
    Fluid Hosting, LLC - HSphere Shared and Reseller hosting - Now with HIGH AVAILABILITY
    Fluid VPS - Linux and Windows Virtuozzo VPS - Enterprise VPS with up to 2 GB guaranteed memory!
    Get your N+1 High Availability Enterprise Cloud
    Equinix Secaucus NY2 (NYC Metro)

  5. #5
    I'm all for Nuclear power as long as we develop a safe, vaible method for storing the spent waste (Yucca Mt just doesn't seem good enough).

    The best thing, however, is to reduce dependence! Solar Panels for all! Cover your house, your body, your cat!
    Colin

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Melbourne Downunder
    Posts
    2,296
    And the steam explosion at cherobyl
    what was it that happened at 3 mile island ?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    UK - Liverpool
    Posts
    2,169
    I think we should run a very heavily insulated cable to the sun and plug it into the sun, then plug it into the earth, we would get plenty of power from our sun then.
    www.24y.co.uk - Fast Professional UK Web Hosting

  8. #8
    i dont mind nuclear. lets face it we need more power, nuclear can be the cleanest sustainable way that can provide all the power we need. we can cover the land in windmills and hep dams and tidal and geothermal and one old granny might get enough power for her leccy blanket. nukes and reprocessing is the way to go.
    --
    Rich

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,571
    I'm pretty much neutral on it. Nuclear fission isn't really a low-waste solution to our energy problems. Then again, coal/gas/oil will soon run out.
    -Mooneer
    Thoughtbug Software: Hosting shouldn't require any thought.
    Legitimate host? Support the Code of Ethical Conduct

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Palm Beach, FL
    Posts
    1,095
    Originally posted by FHDave
    I want power harnessed from anti-particle! 1 gram of anti hydrogen will generate enough power to run a car for 100000 years! Now, that's power!
    I second the vote for anti-matter!
    Alex Llera
    Professional Server Management
    FreeBSD|Linux|HSphere|Cpanel|Plesk

  11. #11
    unfortunately those 10000000years of energy are delivered in .000001 of a second lol. in the form of a loud bang.
    --
    Rich

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,139
    Nuclear is the way to go because our power demands.

    Solar is good, but it is expensive and is useless in anything other than perfect sunlight. However, I've read about a process where large solar arrays (satellites) could be put in geostationary orbit high enough where they will not be affected by the shadow of the planet. The power is beamed down by radio waves from the satellite and is picked up by large antennas and reconverted into electricity back on the ground. Since the energy is in the form of radio waves, cloud cover won't affect the energy though some energy will be lost during the journey to earth. If the satellite misses the antenna, the radio beam is completely harmless, and the only real waste is in the form of heat which is on the antennas.

    The techology exists to do this, but the things would cost trillions. I'm sure this power method is already used by the military though.
    Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) Brain Cancer Awareness. May is Brain Cancer awareness month. Gray Matters!
    Incurable, 6-18 months prognosis, survivors longer than 3 years less than 1% chance.
    Don't like what I say? Ignore me.

  13. #13
    Originally posted by MGCJerry
    Nuclear is the way to go because our power demands.

    Solar is good, but it is expensive and is useless in anything other than perfect sunlight. However, I've read about a process where large solar arrays (satellites) could be put in geostationary orbit high enough where they will not be affected by the shadow of the planet. The power is beamed down by radio waves from the satellite and is picked up by large antennas and reconverted into electricity back on the ground. Since the energy is in the form of radio waves, cloud cover won't affect the energy though some energy will be lost during the journey to earth. If the satellite misses the antenna, the radio beam is completely harmless, and the only real waste is in the form of heat which is on the antennas.

    The techology exists to do this, but the things would cost trillions. I'm sure this power method is already used by the military though.
    Problem is the beaming down will create LARGE amounts of radiation

    Antimatter can be safely controlled, in a million years, unless people agree to solar panels and windmills( i do) nuclear is the only way to go since were gonna run out of fuel

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    892
    If more efficient reactors can be built and used here (like the ones France uses) Then I am for it.

    But the fact that the waste takes 10000 years to decompose makes me a little uncomfortable

  15. #15
    but it can be reprocessed right?
    --
    Rich

  16. #16
    Originally posted by richy
    but it can be reprocessed right?
    Nuclear waste? No. Unless you can eat it I guess, but I wouldn't try it.

  17. #17
    oh damn. wonder what those guys at sellafield do all day then must be pretty funky getting paid to eat spent fuel all day.
    --
    Rich

  18. #18
    it can be reprocessed into fuel for breeder reactors, and that can be burried

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •