Maybe nuclear is the answer?

spoken like a true hippy.. no not realy, yeah i know what you mean but reading other sources and just realy reading this thread i have to disagree.

I do think it depends on your persuasions ... i would have you on the governing body forming policys jo, but not you on your own. if you know what i mean.

you and mui are holding us all back..partly .

I am hopeing for a peacful world.. then some of your dreams would be possible.

 

I think its just the name nuclear that makes so many people uncomfortable... we should change the name to sunshine fuel.

It's not only true, but I bet people would feel less scared if the word nuclear wasn't thrown around... people associate that word with things getting blown up, and you don't wanna start out your debate with that kinda misconception.

 

Theres nothing saying we can't have peace and nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy is very very effecient, and very safe if done properly.

 

I heard on the radio the other day, i forget the actual quote.. but the gist is that it does not matter what you call things people will just learn to fear it all the same. calling a great friggin nuclear plant sunshine aint gonna help.

 

That's why I said that maybe people should start spending more time on developing ways to exploit these resources more and maybe they would find a way to use the resources so beneficially that they would be enough to satisfy the need of power. I know there are problems even with the renewable energy sources.. there are pros and cons with everything. I just think that the cons in nuclear power are way too big (considering that one big nuclear plant accident might end up destroying the whole planet) and therefore, the use of other (more safe) energy resources should be maximized.

 

I was thinking greater co operation between nations..then not the fear of nuclear mis use and we called all share in the responsibilities.

 

But nuclear power really isn't that unsafe... People need to get over their fear, nuclear power could provide us with virtually limitless clean efficient energy..

 

nonononononono, nuclear power runs with nuclear FISSION (shooting electrons into uranium-228 ((i think.. i know its some type of uranium isotope)) so that it busts into a krypton atom, something else, and 3 electrons that bust into more uranium atoms), which produces alot of heat, which heats water into steam, which turns a turbine, and then condenses, and then goes back to water to start the system again.

if we knew how to start a FUSION reaction, it would supply us with endless ammounts of energy, with no radioactive waste. theres more to that, but yeah..


anyways, a peice of uranium-(isotope i cant remember) the size of your thumb produces more energy than a couple thousand tons of coal, with absolutly no smoke, only nuclear waste once every couple of years.

but yeah, fusion has only happened a couple of times, and that was just a biproduct of the use of H-bombs... which needed the fission reaction to get enough heat to achive fusion, so yeah..


btw, the only reason chernobyl (sp) blew up is because the ruskies were all like "we dont need it, russian engeneers are t3h 1337!"


and yeah, nuclear power is uuuuuber safe. they have so many precautions and safeguards that it would be hard to get a melt down even if they were trying.

 

and you're right there.

 

I know it's not completely unsafe, I'm just saying that IF something happens the consequences are a lot more severe, disastrous and long-term than in any other cases.

 

Things would be so heavily regulated though that it highly unlikely anything would happen.

 

It's almost endless nuclear safety

 

Hopefully. They're building a 5th nuclear power plant in Finland and they better not fuck anything up. I don't want my beautiful country to be blown up.

 

I'm sure you also don't want your beautiful country to be overly polluted?

 

Nope. If you're talking about oil now, I can proudly say that the oil use is minimized in Finland. True, that's thanks to nuclear power. But we also have experimental solar and wind power plants there quite a lot.

 

Nuclear energy requires uranium - of which the US has enough to power existing reactors for 25-40 years. As with oil, the extraction of uranium follows a bell-curve. If a large scale nuclear program was undertaken the supply of US domestically derived uranium would likely peak in under 15 years.

Even if such a program is undertaken, there is no guarantee the energy generated from nuclear sources would be any cheaper than energy generated from fossil fuels. Attempts by China and India to scale up their use of nuclear energy, for instance, have already caused uranium prices to skyrocket.

Uranium supply issues aside, a large scale switch over to nuclear power is not really an option for an economy that requires as much energy as ours does. It would take 10,000 of the largest nuclear power plants to produce the energy we get from fossil fuels. At $3-5 billion per plant, it's not long before we're talking about "real money" - especially since the $3-5 billion doesn't even include the cost of decommissioning old reactors, converting the nuclear generated energy into a fuel source appropriate for cars, boats, trucks, airplanes, and the not-so-minor problem of handling nuclear waste.

Speaking of nuclear waste, it is a question nobody has quite answered yet. This is especially the case in countries such as China and Russia, where safety protocols are unlikely to be strictly adhered to if the surrounding economy is in the midst of a desperate energy shortage.

Nor has anybody answered the question, "Where are we going to get the massive amounts of oil necessary to build all of these reactors, especially since they take 10 or so years to build and we won't get motivated to build them until after oil supplies have reached a point of permanent scarcity?"

Finally, there is the small problem of what to do if a tsunami (or other similarly destructive catastrophe) hits an area where these plants are located.

 

Solar power just doesn't look like it will mature as a source of energy anytime soon... Wind power maybe, but still, I just don't believe that it can scale enough... That's cool that they're trying though, must be nice to have relatively little pollution...

 

There are many other supplies of uranium available though, not to mention that current reactors aren't nearly as efficient as they could be, plus normally they only use about 5% of the energy available in the materials, which are in fact highly recyclable.
I must wonder, did you actualy read the article?

 

I love it when THE worst case scenarios and all the negativities are all put together by a more than likely skeptical person.... You raise some good points though.

 

All I'm doing is supplying an alternative view to that of nuclear salvation...