Freedom from fission

[Laukev7]

This is a thread where you may discuss how we should oppose people interfering with OUR planet.

You shall NOT produce energy with means that outputs indestructible toxic radioactive waste that's going to be stored on OUR planet.

You shall NOT build power plants just because of your fascination for nuclear energy.

You shall NOT take scientific advice on energy production from someone with an unhealthy fascination for nuclear bombs.

[Calum]

actually i don't think people will listen to that. i think they WILL do all those things regardless of sense, thought, protests or anything else.

[skyman8081]

This is a thread where you may discuss how we should oppose people interfering with OUR planet.

So, that's everybody on earth.  I don't like you interfering with MY planet either, but I'm not going to try and kick you out of my thread, because I'm not afraid of you, or your arguments.

You shall NOT produce energy with means that outputs indestructible toxic radioactive waste that's going to be stored on OUR planet.

So then, coal power is right out?

You shall NOT build power plants just because of your fascination for nuclear energy.

As opposed to things like cost effictiveness, efficiency, safety, or lack of pollution.

You shall NOT take scientific advice on energy production from someone with an unhealthy fascination for nuclear bombs.

Ad Hominem.

[skyman8081]

By the Way, this is the debating tactic you are using:

Don't straw man my arguments.

This thread deserves to be moron zoned.

[Calum]

i think you are being too hard on yourself. just because one moron replies to a thread doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be binned.

[Aloone_Jonez]

For what it's worth here's my opinion;

Nuclear bombs are bad and do have the potential to destroy the earth but I honestly don't know whether I support nuclear energy or not because I don't know enough about it. Fossil fuels will one day run out but currently renewables can't fully replace them (at least with current technology), at the moment nuclear fuel seems the next best choice as they don't release and greenhouse gasses but there's the problem of the radioactive waste, yes it can be reprocessed but there's still a limited number of times this can be done and there is still no safe and easy way of disposing of it.

I think the best solution for now is to stick with fossil fuels and possibly increase nuclear energy use slightly until we've developed the technology to harness renewable sources well enough to replace non-renewables.

[cahult]

Read "Rainbow Six" by Tom Clancy and then come back and say we need to root out everything that is pestering this planet.

[skyman8081]

I have to agree.  you are running on the same dogma of the ELF and the Earth First! loonies.

[worker201]

Thinking that human beings, especially in Western societies, use too much and waste too much and destroy too much does not make one a loony.  As a matter of public opinion, someone who loudly boasts the benefits of nuclear domination would make one more of a loony.  

EARTH FIRST!

[toadlife]

A Fusion reactor is already in the process of being built in France.

If it works out, we can kiss fission reactors and the gobs of permanent waste they prodcuce goodbye.

[skyman8081]

A Fusion reactor is already in the process of being built in France.

If it works out, we can kiss fission reactors and the gobs of permanent waste they prodcuce goodbye.

Psh, I think we will se breeders reactors in the same facility as a fusion plant.

Because those create a fuel supply for the fusion reactors.

If fusion does take off, it won't replace fission, we will simply add it to our arsenal of various technologies.

[worker201]

Errr, Darth Plutonium, I have a question for you.

Do you think it would be a good idea for Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Mexico and Algeria, among others, to have fast breeder reactors?  Do you really want every country in the world to be creating weapons-grade plutonium in their spare time?

If so, then that's very interesting.

If not, then there's one more danger of nuclear power you haven't been thinking about.  Nuclear proliferation cannot proliferate in only one direction.  The more common nuclear weapons and energy are, the easier they will be to get.  The plutonium that comes out of a breeder will be just as dangerous raw as it is built into a fission device.  And you want this stuff to be pouring out of power plants around the world, just like ice from an ice machine?  That's not sane or safe.

60 years ago, nuclear energy stopped being just a power source, and became something far different.  All the safety statistics in the world can't take us back to August 1, 1945.

[worker201]

If fusion does take off, it won't replace fission, we will simply add it to our arsenal of various technologies.

(emphasis mine)


Very frighteningly apropos.  Either that, or a very bad pun.

[toadlife]

What the hell do you doomsayers suggest we use instead?

[toadlife]

Psh, I think we will se breeders reactors in the same facility as a fusion plant.

Because those create a fuel supply for the fusion reactors.

No they don't. Breeder reactors provide fuel for other fission based  reactors. Fusion reactors don't use plutonium or enriched uramiun - they use light molecules, like hydrogen and helium.