Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => The Lounge => Topic started by: Laukev7 on 8 August 2005, 11:13
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
By the Way, this is the debating tactic you are using:
(http://www.eclecticala.com/figurals/strawman.jpg)
Don't straw man my arguments.
This thread deserves to be moron zoned.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Read "Rainbow Six" by Tom Clancy and then come back and say we need to root out everything that is pestering this planet.
-
I have to agree. you are running on the same dogma of the ELF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Liberation_Front) and the Earth First! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_First%21) loonies.
-
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!
-
A Fusion reactor (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4629239.stm) 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.
-
A Fusion reactor (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4629239.stm) 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
What the hell do you doomsayers suggest we use instead?
-
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.
-
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.
If you hadn't, I would've.
Hydrogen-> Helium ->Beryllium->Oxygen->Fe(Iron), I think they taught us to be the Sun's fusion chain. Wouldn't it be beautiful if our hydrogen and helium powered plants would produce pure IRON as waste???
-
If you hadn't, I would've.
Hydrogen-> Helium ->Beryllium->Oxygen->Fe(Iron), I think they taught us to be the Sun's fusion chain. Wouldn't it be beautiful if our hydrogen and helium powered plants would produce pure IRON as waste???
Ah, but we have a problem here. To produce hydrogen, you need either water or hydrocarbons. What if all the water gets turned into iron?
-
Ah, but we have a problem here. To produce hydrogen, you need either water or hydrocarbons. What if all the water gets turned into iron?
Not probable. And there's plenty of sources. Acids, Calcite etc... not just water (I'm thinking: many H composites)
And remember E=mc^2? One kilogram of Hydrogen is plenty of energy!!! (I know. We do not transform the H into energy...)
-
In reality, we are not transforming anything into energy. We are releasing the nuclear binding energy. Because of the way binding energy works, there are 2 ways - break apart heavy items, or smash together light items. A quick glance at a graph of binding energy will show you exactly why fusion releases more energy than fission.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy
-
Either way the mass of the components after the reaction is less than it was before - the lost mass is converted to energy.
I woudn't worry about using hydrogen from water as the amount of water on the planet has increased since humans have been burning hydrocarbon fossil fuels. Using hydrogen from water will release oxygen which will help compensate for the oxygen lost in carbon dioxide and deforrestation.
If you hadn't, I would've.
Hydrogen-> Helium ->Beryllium->Oxygen->Fe(Iron), I think they taught us to be the Sun's fusion chain. Wouldn't it be beautiful if our hydrogen and helium powered plants would produce pure IRON as waste???
I don't know, aren't other elements produced as well, including gold, but there again aren't some radioactive isotopes produced as well?
-
Some forms of fusion, such as tritium + deuterium will make the containment vessel mildly radioactive.
Deuterium + Deuterium fusion and H + H is clean.
-
Either way the mass of the components after the reaction is less than it was before - the lost mass is converted to energy.
NOT true. Fission and fusion do not result in lost mass. In fusion, the atoms are combined to produce a heavier atom, and a few extra photons. In fission, the atoms are broken into pieces, and a few alpha particles. Either way, the equations balance, and all protons, neutrons, and electrons are accounted for. The output is the binding energy.
-
Ok I think I kind of get this now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy
Because a bound system is at a lower energy level, its mass must be less than its unbound constituents. Nuclear binding energy can be computed from the difference in mass of a nucleus, and the sum of the mass of the neutrons and protons that make up the nucleus. Once this mass difference (also called the mass defect) is known, Einstein's formula (E = mc
-
I'm with the anti-nuclear people. I believe that it's a good idea to continue to use fossil fuels to destroy the atmosphere, and bring us closer to a harmful oil crash. At least I'll be safe on the road in my Hummer 2 when the riots over gasoline start, and I'll be able to convert all the rubber parts on it into a gas mask to wear when the air is unbreathable.
GO WEST COAST TREEHUGGERS!
-
I had another thought...
Burning fossil fuels creates Smaug.
Smaug burns peasants, women, houses, and villages. If this happens, Bilbo has to talk to that damnable bird to go wake Bard up. NOBODY WANTS THIS! I mean, do YOU?!?!
JIMMY JAMES FOR THE ANTI-SMAUG FOUNDATION.
-
Oh yeah... fusion rocks. It's awesome to have THE SUN around.
Fusion makes awesome bombs.
-
I had another thought...
Burning fossil fuels creates Smaug.
Actually, according to all of the Tolkien scholars I have read (1), a gross accumulation of wealth is what creates Smaug. Smaug came down from the north because the riches of the dwarfs tempted him. Kinda like Hrothgar's golden hall in "Beowulf", it attracts the envy and hate of a monster.
(1) - nerd alert!
-
What the hell is Smaug?
-
Smaug is the evil dragon from Tolkien's "The Hobbit"
-
Ah! Now it all makes sense.
-
I thought it was called Smog.
I guess I haven't read the book then. :D ;)
-
Your Guess Was Wrong
-
How dare you say that!
I'm never wrong. :rolleyes:
Haha, just kidding 70s dude. :D
-
(http://kintaro.noobify.com/drupal/pub/images/Celebs/AliG-Restecp.jpeg)
-
(http://kintaro.noobify.com/drupal/pub/images/Celebs/AliG-Restecp.jpeg)
BOZ BISHOP? :cool:
Anyone who doesn't know who that is, get a life and watch Nash Bridges, in that particular order. The guy's a dead ringer for Christian Meoli.
-
LOL, nice picture use Kintaro.
Great picture. :D
-
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.
Radioactive waste isn't such a big problem. One meter of packed dirt reduces gamma radiation by thousandfold. Or just use water, it'll happily ionize the radiation as well. As long as the waste doesn't leak out, there's no problem. And if it leaks out and you're using water you can just just vaporize water, clean up and seal the original package again.
I'm fascinated with nuclear power because it's one of the only truly green sources of energy. Every other form is more destructive to the nature, killing the planet. Nuclear plants are local problem, coal plants are global problem. Your choice, I'll choose to minimize the damage, and choose what's best for the planet: Nuclear power!
Also, if you're worried about weapon production, just have some international organization oversee the energy production and process wastes so that they can't be used for weapons without further expensive reprocessing. That way it's not such a problem.
Oh, and you can keep nuclear waste in the plants for few years before moving them to longer term storage. During that time it gets to decay a little, and is easier to manage. Spent fuel pools could store all the waste for few more years without any need to move anything out. When the space is running out, older wastes just need to be moved out to some underground storage facility somewhere.