Discussion in 'Science' started by Danske, Nov 1, 2011.
You mean.. like coal?
Future generations may end up cursing us. ie "Really? They burnt natural hydrocarbons for fuel? Idiots!"
I love it how he rekons nuclear energy is "old and yesterday's thinking" LOL .
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.
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.
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.
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...
Wow man, that's pretty old.
They need to do more with Hydrogen ;0
that shit is intense, and soo much of it!
Nuclear fusion? Already covered.
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!
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
That's the one
I was more thinking of Tokamak reactors, but at least we're looking at other areas of the science.
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.
"Fusion reactors will be a practical reality within 40 years" Hmm where have i seen that before?
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
I like how the poll is skewed to 91% For.
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.
Don't let the truth get in the way of a good nuclear power bashing.