Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Darvi]

Putting this up to take the discussion off the Japan thread.

[Criptfeind]

I think you need to lead with... something.

[Darvi]

I was actually just hoping that the discussion from the other thread would be continued here xP

[ein]

I would like to voice my support for nuclear power despite having not checked the Japan thread since I evacuated for the (possibility of a) tsunami.
The general populace lacks an understanding of nuclear power and assumes it's bad because of the bombs.

[RedKing]

Magma?

[ein]

Isn't Reykjavik implementing/having already implemented geothermal power?

[freeformschooler]

I would like to voice my support for nuclear power despite having not checked the Japan thread since I evacuated for the (possibility of a) tsunami.
The general populace lacks an understanding of nuclear power and assumes it's bad because of the bombs.

No, they assume it's bad because oh no radiation, and things like Chernobyl. The bombs are secondary.

I personally vouch for dihydrogen monoxide as a new power source. It's already contaminating our sewer systems and drinking vessels, and rusting all of our metals, we might as well put it to use for something!

[Levi]

I would like to voice my support for nuclear power despite having not checked the Japan thread since I evacuated for the (possibility of a) tsunami.
The general populace lacks an understanding of nuclear power and assumes it's bad because of the bombs.

I tend to agree.  Nuclear power has its issues but its a much better alternative to coal/gas polluting our air.  I need air to breath!


Personally I'm waiting on getting a Dyson Sphere up and running.

[Darvi]

I would like to voice my support for nuclear power despite having not checked the Japan thread since I evacuated for the (possibility of a) tsunami.
The general populace lacks an understanding of nuclear power and assumes it's bad because of the bombs.

No, they assume it's bad because oh no radiation, and things like Chernobyl. The bombs are secondary.

I personally vouch for dihydrogen monoxide as a new power source. It's already contaminating our sewer systems and drinking vessels, and rusting all of our metals, we might as well put it to use for something!

In layman's terms, he means water.

[freeformschooler]

I would like to voice my support for nuclear power despite having not checked the Japan thread since I evacuated for the (possibility of a) tsunami.
The general populace lacks an understanding of nuclear power and assumes it's bad because of the bombs.

No, they assume it's bad because oh no radiation, and things like Chernobyl. The bombs are secondary.

I personally vouch for dihydrogen monoxide as a new power source. It's already contaminating our sewer systems and drinking vessels, and rusting all of our metals, we might as well put it to use for something!

In layman's terms, he means water.

NO FAIR
I can't pull anything on you guys.

[ein]

About water power: hydroelectric dams are a terrible, terrible idea.
There are experimental wave generators though, and they could be used without flooding places.

Also, since I apparently forgot to mention it before: thorium based nuclear power plants.

[PTTG??]

I would like to voice my support for nuclear power despite having not checked the Japan thread since I evacuated for the (possibility of a) tsunami.
The general populace lacks an understanding of nuclear power and assumes it's bad because of the bombs.

Well, there's little uranium, much of it in unstable countries. It needs to be shipped and refined without escaping into the underworld for use in dirty bombs. It then needs to be used safely for a period, then stored forever, or until reclamation is perfected. It may be very safe, but the consequences of failure at any point are extremely dire.

I personally don't think they are all that dangerous. It's just that the worst case scenario is far more severe than other power sources.

Someone mentioned solar power using molten salt; it's safe, can function 24 hours a day, and doesn't require exotic materials. I like it.

I'm most excited about geothermal. It's cheaper than coal in most places and pretty much can't go wrong. Note that you don't need a volcano; anyplace will work if you go deep enough. So yeah, magma.

Then there's orbital solar. It's expensive for many reasons (to-orbit costs, repair, exotic materials), and it requires large rectennas on the ground. However, in a good orbit, it provides power for all but 8 hours a year and is probably pretty much permanent.

[white_darkness]

Hmmm, so there's been a total of 99 accidents since the first reactor went up in 1954 and approximately 450 working reactors.  Odd how 56 accidents have occurred in the US.

[Taricus]

I would like to voice my support for nuclear power despite having not checked the Japan thread since I evacuated for the (possibility of a) tsunami.
The general populace lacks an understanding of nuclear power and assumes it's bad because of the bombs.

Well, there's little uranium, much of it in unstable countries. It needs to be shipped and refined without escaping into the underworld for use in dirty bombs. It then needs to be used safely for a period, then stored forever, or until reclamation is perfected. It may be very safe, but the consequences of failure at any point are extremely dire.

I personally don't think they are all that dangerous. It's just that the worst case scenario is far more severe than other power sources.

You forgot that mining it isn't exactly environmentally safe either.

[Darvi]

I like geothermal energy. Almost like magma.