Are you for or against Nuclear Energy in any shape or form?

Discussion in 'Science' started by Danske, Nov 1, 2011.

?

Are you for or against Nuclear Energy?

  1. For

    332 vote(s)
    91.0%
  2. Against

    33 vote(s)
    9.0%
  1. HairyMerkin

    HairyMerkin Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,890
    Location:
    Melb
    You mean.. like coal?
     
  2. Cadbury

    Cadbury Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,752
    Location:
    Coogee, WA
    Future generations may end up cursing us. ie "Really? They burnt natural hydrocarbons for fuel? Idiots!" :D
     
  3. OP
    OP
    Danske

    Danske Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    18,355
    Location:
    Melgoon
    I love it how he rekons nuclear energy is "old and yesterday's thinking" LOL :lol:.
     
  4. Queenie

    Queenie Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,090
    Location:
    Adelaide
    It's the lesser, FAR lesser, of two evils.

    Sure, it's gonna take a few thousand years for the waste to go down to safe levels.

    But the way we're going with fossil fuels this earth won't last another 100.
     
  5. Dicky

    Dicky (Taking a Break)

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    Messages:
    691
    Location:
    Sydney
    How is it different? You expect to use a public delivery mechanism, when you you have the capacity to be self sufficient.

    What would a 6Kw system cost? I'm guessing not much more than the mobile phalluses' many young and impressionable here drive.

    What is this doing in Science forum anyway? The question and subsequent answers have nothing to do with science.

    1954 is not old enough for you? How exactly has the technology advanced in that time? My uncle was punching cards for computer programmes in the 50's.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2011
  6. Brett

    Brett Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    3,869
    Location:
    Collie, WA
    Compared to 300BC for hydro power and 500AD for wind?
    We've been burning biomass (wood, peat) for power for at least 100 thousand years.
     
  7. OP
    OP
    Danske

    Danske Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    18,355
    Location:
    Melgoon
    Your answer is:
    ^^

    No one is proposing we install 1954 classed Nuclear Reactors. Derp.

    The IDEA of nuclear fission may be from the 1940-50s but the current design of Nucelar reactors are not of that age. Hello Fast Breeder reactors. Protip, they eat the waste from the old reactors.

    Burning coal has been around for a long, long, LOOOOONNNGGGGGG time...
     
  8. HairyMerkin

    HairyMerkin Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,890
    Location:
    Melb
  9. ikonz0r

    ikonz0r Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    2,546
    Location:
    Brisvegas
    They need to do more with Hydrogen ;0
    that shit is intense, and soo much of it!
     
  10. Brett

    Brett Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    3,869
    Location:
    Collie, WA
    Nuclear fusion? Already covered.
     
  11. OP
    OP
    Danske

    Danske Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    18,355
    Location:
    Melgoon
    Yeah the giant fuck off lazer in USA that does nuclear fusion with hydrogen atoms.

    Craaaaazzzzy shit man.

    Forget it's name or i'd link it to you guys!
     
  12. RobRoySyd

    RobRoySyd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8,049
    Location:
    Sydney
    Perhaps you're thinking of The National Ignition Facility: https://lasers.llnl.gov/



    For anyone interested in learning some science here is a link to a good page on thorium: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html#b
     
  13. OP
    OP
    Danske

    Danske Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    18,355
    Location:
    Melgoon
  14. Brett

    Brett Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    3,869
    Location:
    Collie, WA
    I was more thinking of Tokamak reactors, but at least we're looking at other areas of the science.
     
  15. gobbledegook

    gobbledegook Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    573
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, QLD
    Weren't those Russian? I know there's a few different design/implementations around the world but still a fair way off a functional power plant.
     
  16. Cadbury

    Cadbury Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,752
    Location:
    Coogee, WA
    "Fusion reactors will be a practical reality within 40 years" Hmm where have i seen that before? :(
     
  17. Tabris

    Tabris Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    839
    Location:
    Albury
    Probably 40 years ago.

    Power generating clean* fusion energy is only 40 years away!


    * Well, except for all the radioactive waste they produce as well
     
  18. OP
    OP
    Danske

    Danske Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    18,355
    Location:
    Melgoon
    I like how the poll is skewed to 91% For.

    L
    o
    L
     
  19. Billzilla

    Billzilla Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,251
    Location:
    Gold Coast
    As I mentioned in my other post in this thread, and so far everyone has ignored, we can make a working fusion reactor right now.
     
  20. Brett

    Brett Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    3,869
    Location:
    Collie, WA
    Don't let the truth get in the way of a good nuclear power bashing.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: