Print

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

[kaijyuu]

If feeding people as efficiently as possible is your goal, raising animals (or people) is the last thing you want to be doing. Raise high yield crops.

TBH actual plankton is probably a good idea. Lots of sea area to make farms. Dunno how difficult it would be to process it into something human edible, though.

[DrPoo]

Damn Atomic Mass Hysteria for the coming dark ages, you could just have trusted those scientists.
Everybody thinks a gram of uranium is synonymous with mass destruction and mushroom clouds..

[lemon10]

Damn Atomic Mass Hysteria for the coming dark ages, you could just have trusted those scientists.
Everybody thinks a gram of uranium is synonymous with mass destruction and mushroom clouds..

Nuclear power won't work in the long run either. First of all, it non-renewable too, so once we run out of oil we will run out of uranium as well. Second of all, it won't work in unstable or underdeveloped countries due to possible terrorism, possible simple lack of safety standards and lack of necessary investment. Third of all, their is still a (small) chance of a nuclear meltdown, which in the long run is much higher, especially if we increase the amount of nuclear plants.
Finally we still don't have any real way of dealing with nuclear waste (besides shipping it off to poor countries) in the long run (10 thousand to millions of years).

[forsaken1111]

Obviously we should build a massive ring around earth to harvest the natural antimatter trapped in our magnetic field and use that as a power source. It could be reacted in orbit and the power beamed down as microwave radiation to receiving stations.

No source of power is truly renewable though. You will eventually run out of everything. HEAT DEATH

[Bauglir]

Damn Atomic Mass Hysteria for the coming dark ages, you could just have trusted those scientists.
Everybody thinks a gram of uranium is synonymous with mass destruction and mushroom clouds..

Nuclear power won't work in the long run either. First of all, it non-renewable too, so once we run out of oil we will run out of uranium as well. Second of all, it won't work in unstable or underdeveloped countries due to possible terrorism, possible simple lack of safety standards and lack of necessary investment. Third of all, their is still a (small) chance of a nuclear meltdown, which in the long run is much higher, especially if we increase the amount of nuclear plants.
Finally we still don't have any real way of dealing with nuclear waste (besides shipping it off to poor countries) in the long run (10 thousand to millions of years).

It's non-renewable, but it is still another resource and IIRC its projected lifetime is greater than what remains of oil, but hey, the estimates could be wrong. But it's not even remotely tied to the availability of oil, so it won't run out when we run out of oil. There's a chance of a meltdown, but if you compare the expected damage from meltdowns and the expected pollution a nuclear power plant would produce, the expected ecological damage from nuclear power is still lower than continuing to use fossil fuels, for any given power plant. Again, if I remember correctly; I'm gonna go do some research on that and post some links.

The risks are dramatically overexaggerated, is my point.

[Nadaka]

Damn Atomic Mass Hysteria for the coming dark ages, you could just have trusted those scientists.
Everybody thinks a gram of uranium is synonymous with mass destruction and mushroom clouds..

Nuclear power won't work in the long run either. First of all, it non-renewable too, so once we run out of oil we will run out of uranium as well. Second of all, it won't work in unstable or underdeveloped countries due to possible terrorism, possible simple lack of safety standards and lack of necessary investment. Third of all, their is still a (small) chance of a nuclear meltdown, which in the long run is much higher, especially if we increase the amount of nuclear plants.
Finally we still don't have any real way of dealing with nuclear waste (besides shipping it off to poor countries) in the long run (10 thousand to millions of years).

The difference between oil and uranium is that we can produce 100% of our energy needs with oil for a few years at most and we can produce 100% of our energy needs with uranium for a few centuries at least.

And nuclear "waste" is not an issue if we use feeder breeder reactors. The only reason nuclear "waste" is an issue for thousands of years is that it is 98% unspent nuclear fuel. Use up the rest of that fuel and you are left with products that are no more dangerous than granite and a product with a half life so short that it will burn itself out fast enough that storing it in concrete casks for a couple centuries will more than enough to neutralize it.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There are also nuclear reactions that don't involve uranium, such as thorium reactors and whatever else we can think up in the time it takes to eat away at Earth's uranium and thorium supplies. And that's just fission. Don't even get me started on fusion.

Also, you are all panicking over nothing. Just saying.

[alway]

Also, you are all panicking over nothing. Just saying.

Mostly this. World population is expected to peak mid to late century at around 10 billion.

[Bohandas]

Damn Atomic Mass Hysteria for the coming dark ages, you could just have trusted those scientists.
Everybody thinks a gram of uranium is synonymous with mass destruction and mushroom clouds..

Nuclear power won't work in the long run either. First of all, it non-renewable too, so once we run out of oil we will run out of uranium as well. Second of all, it won't work in unstable or underdeveloped countries due to possible terrorism, possible simple lack of safety standards and lack of necessary investment. Third of all, their is still a (small) chance of a nuclear meltdown, which in the long run is much higher, especially if we increase the amount of nuclear plants.
Finally we still don't have any real way of dealing with nuclear waste (besides shipping it off to poor countries) in the long run (10 thousand to millions of years).

If you wanna get really technical about it, there are no truly renewable power sources, thanks to the second law of thermodynamics. Even the sun and wind will eventually exhaust themselves.

[Bauglir]

Well, Wikipedia is the best I care to do for now, but yeah. That last paragraph there is what I mean; while nuclear power can be more dramatic about things, it's less lethal. And that's accounting for the smaller amount of time it's been around to be killing people, too.

[forsaken1111]

Damn Atomic Mass Hysteria for the coming dark ages, you could just have trusted those scientists.
Everybody thinks a gram of uranium is synonymous with mass destruction and mushroom clouds..

Nuclear power won't work in the long run either. First of all, it non-renewable too, so once we run out of oil we will run out of uranium as well. Second of all, it won't work in unstable or underdeveloped countries due to possible terrorism, possible simple lack of safety standards and lack of necessary investment. Third of all, their is still a (small) chance of a nuclear meltdown, which in the long run is much higher, especially if we increase the amount of nuclear plants.
Finally we still don't have any real way of dealing with nuclear waste (besides shipping it off to poor countries) in the long run (10 thousand to millions of years).

If you wanna get really technical about it, there are no truly renewable power sources, thanks to the second law of thermodynamics. Even the sun and wind will eventually exhaust themselves.

Look up. I beat you to this by several posts.