|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#291
|
|||
|
|||
Whats Wrong With NUCLEAR Power
On Sep 15, 1:48*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
BradGuth wrote Rod Speed wrote BradGuth wrote Rod Speed wrote BradGuth wrote Immortalist wrote Proponents of nuclear energy contend that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil. Proponents also emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer reactors and that the operational safety record in the Western world is excellent when compared to the other major types of power plants. Critics believe that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous energy source, with decreasing proportion of nuclear energy in production, and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new technology. Proponents advance the notion that nuclear power produces virtually no air pollution, in contrast to the chief viable alternative of fossil fuel combustion. Proponents also point out that nuclear power is the only viable course to achieve energy independence for most Western countries. Critics point to the issue of storing radioactive waste, the history of and continuing potential for radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, the continuing possibility of nuclear proliferation, and the disadvantages of centralized electricity production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years (10'000 years according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards). High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100% security. A small probability of failure will always last. The consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for human being as for the nature (see here , here or here ). The more nuclear power plants (and nuclear waste storage shelters) are built, the higher is the probability of a disastrous failure somewhere in the world. Nuclear power plants as well as nuclear waste could be preferred targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy plant in the world could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in Yew York. Such a terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the whole world. During the operation of nuclear power plants, radioactive waste is produced, which in turn can be used for the production of nuclear weapons. In addition, the same know-how used to design nuclear power plants can to a certain extent be used to build nuclear weapons (nuclear proliferation). The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium. Uranium is a scarce resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60 years depending on the actual demand. The time frame needed for formalities, planning and building of a new nuclear power generation plant is in the range of 20 to 30 years in the western democracies. In other words: It is an illusion to build new nuclear power plants in a short time. http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-co...-and-sustainab... Thorium is perfectly fine and dandy. So why not use it? Of course geothermal energy is even better. Nope, its main problem is that it mostly isnt where the energy will be used. In fact almost any form of energy other than derived from coal or other hydrocarbons is better for the short and long-term. Never the less, in most applications uranium sucks. Wrong again. It works fine in France and Japan. You really don't seem to care about humanity, Humanity is doing fine in all but the dregs of the third world where nukes and geothermal are completely irrelevant while ever they keep having FAR more kids than their circumstances can possibly support. or that of our badly failing environment, do you. Taint failing at all. And if you believe that CO2 levels are the problem, nukes fix that much more effectively than geothermal does and they get rid of the **** so many coal fired power stations pump into the environment as well. I suppose $1/kwhr That is a bare faced lie. Neither france or japan spend anything like that for their electricity from nukes. suits your public funded mindset perfectly fine and dandy. Anything uranium can do, thorium can do ten fold better, Wrong with ready to go nukes that have been working fine for decades now. and geothermal at another ten fold better yet. Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys/lies. This topic of "Whats Wrong With NUCLEAR Power" is not a topic of 'Whats Right With NUCLEAR Power'. Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag. reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs I consider the all-inclusive uranium powered reactor as birth-to-grave unacceptable, You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant. |
#292
|
|||
|
|||
Whats Wrong With NUCLEAR Power
BradGuth wrote
Rod Speed wrote BradGuth wrote Rod Speed wrote BradGuth wrote Rod Speed wrote BradGuth wrote Immortalist wrote Proponents of nuclear energy contend that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil. Proponents also emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer reactors and that the operational safety record in the Western world is excellent when compared to the other major types of power plants. Critics believe that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous energy source, with decreasing proportion of nuclear energy in production, and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new technology. Proponents advance the notion that nuclear power produces virtually no air pollution, in contrast to the chief viable alternative of fossil fuel combustion. Proponents also point out that nuclear power is the only viable course to achieve energy independence for most Western countries. Critics point to the issue of storing radioactive waste, the history of and continuing potential for radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, the continuing possibility of nuclear proliferation, and the disadvantages of centralized electricity production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years (10'000 years according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards). High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100% security. A small probability of failure will always last. The consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for human being as for the nature (see here , here or here ). The more nuclear power plants (and nuclear waste storage shelters) are built, the higher is the probability of a disastrous failure somewhere in the world. Nuclear power plants as well as nuclear waste could be preferred targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy plant in the world could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in Yew York. Such a terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the whole world. During the operation of nuclear power plants, radioactive waste is produced, which in turn can be used for the production of nuclear weapons. In addition, the same know-how used to design nuclear power plants can to a certain extent be used to build nuclear weapons (nuclear proliferation). The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium. Uranium is a scarce resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60 years depending on the actual demand. The time frame needed for formalities, planning and building of a new nuclear power generation plant is in the range of 20 to 30 years in the western democracies. In other words: It is an illusion to build new nuclear power plants in a short time. http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-co...-and-sustainab... Thorium is perfectly fine and dandy. So why not use it? Of course geothermal energy is even better. Nope, its main problem is that it mostly isnt where the energy will be used. In fact almost any form of energy other than derived from coal or other hydrocarbons is better for the short and long-term. Never the less, in most applications uranium sucks. Wrong again. It works fine in France and Japan. You really don't seem to care about humanity, Humanity is doing fine in all but the dregs of the third world where nukes and geothermal are completely irrelevant while ever they keep having FAR more kids than their circumstances can possibly support. or that of our badly failing environment, do you. Taint failing at all. And if you believe that CO2 levels are the problem, nukes fix that much more effectively than geothermal does and they get rid of the **** so many coal fired power stations pump into the environment as well. I suppose $1/kwhr That is a bare faced lie. Neither france or japan spend anything like that for their electricity from nukes. suits your public funded mindset perfectly fine and dandy. Anything uranium can do, thorium can do ten fold better, Wrong with ready to go nukes that have been working fine for decades now. and geothermal at another ten fold better yet. Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys/lies. This topic of "Whats Wrong With NUCLEAR Power" is not a topic of 'Whats Right With NUCLEAR Power'. Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag. reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs I consider the all-inclusive uranium powered reactor as birth-to-grave unacceptable, You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant. whereas thorium being a failsafe alternative that's also much cheaper Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate that claim. and a whole lot cleaner, not to mention nuclear weapons proliferation proof Irrelevant in countrys that already have nukes. (as in how many global trillions in savings is that worth?) Completely worthless with countrys that already have nukes. reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs You should start a topic "Whats Right With NUCLEAR Power", You should go and **** yourself, again. reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs |
#293
|
|||
|
|||
Whats Wrong With NUCLEAR Power
On Sep 15, 9:58*pm, (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
Robert Higgins writes: On Sep 14, 11:49=A0pm, gabydewilde wrote: snipped All I wrote was: Protonic state of water Browns gas is made in a common ducted electrolyzer using directcurrent. The gas is a stable "mixture" of di-atomic and mon- atomic hydrogen and oxygen with a higher energy state than diatomic hydrogen.[1] What kind of "higher energy state" is the hydrogen in? Electronic? Sounds kinda like that wacko half-orbital crap espoused by blacklight power. Hydrinos or somesuch. Ah yes, the NASA flyer on wild ideas powered by crackpot crank fringe voodoo psuedo wacko forces. http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2002/06/51792 hahaha http://engineering.eng.rowan.edu/~marchese/blr.html hummmzzz lol.... results described in the Phase I final report, which was issued on Dec. 2, 2002. http://archive.go-here.nl/engineerin...final-niac.pdf presentation was given at the NASA Instituted for Advanced Concepts Phase I Fellows Meeting in Atlanta, GA on October 25, 2002. http://archive.go-here.nl/engineerin.../finalpres.pdf homepage. http://archive.go-here.nl/engineerin...chese/blr.html Other soft copies: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://...hese/blr..html ________ http://blog.go-here.nl |
#294
|
|||
|
|||
Whats Wrong With NUCLEAR Power
On Sep 15, 10:47*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
BradGuth wrote Rod Speed wrote BradGuth wrote Rod Speed wrote BradGuth wrote Rod Speed wrote BradGuth wrote Immortalist wrote Proponents of nuclear energy contend that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil. Proponents also emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer reactors and that the operational safety record in the Western world is excellent when compared to the other major types of power plants. Critics believe that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous energy source, with decreasing proportion of nuclear energy in production, and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new technology. Proponents advance the notion that nuclear power produces virtually no air pollution, in contrast to the chief viable alternative of fossil fuel combustion. Proponents also point out that nuclear power is the only viable course to achieve energy independence for most Western countries. Critics point to the issue of storing radioactive waste, the history of and continuing potential for radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, the continuing possibility of nuclear proliferation, and the disadvantages of centralized electricity production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate The problem of radioactive waste is still an unsolved one. The waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years (10'000 years according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards). High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100% security. A small probability of failure will always last. The consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for human being as for the nature (see here , here or here ). The more nuclear power plants (and nuclear waste storage shelters) are built, the higher is the probability of a disastrous failure somewhere in the world. Nuclear power plants as well as nuclear waste could be preferred targets for terrorist attacks. No atomic energy plant in the world could withstand an attack similar to 9/11 in Yew York. Such a terrorist act would have catastrophic effects for the whole world. During the operation of nuclear power plants, radioactive waste is produced, which in turn can be used for the production of nuclear weapons. In addition, the same know-how used to design nuclear power plants can to a certain extent be used to build nuclear weapons (nuclear proliferation). The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium. Uranium is a scarce resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60 years depending on the actual demand. The time frame needed for formalities, planning and building of a new nuclear power generation plant is in the range of 20 to 30 years in the western democracies. In other words: It is an illusion to build new nuclear power plants in a short time. http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-co...-and-sustainab... Thorium is perfectly fine and dandy. So why not use it? Of course geothermal energy is even better. Nope, its main problem is that it mostly isnt where the energy will be used. In fact almost any form of energy other than derived from coal or other hydrocarbons is better for the short and long-term. Never the less, in most applications uranium sucks. Wrong again. It works fine in France and Japan. You really don't seem to care about humanity, Humanity is doing fine in all but the dregs of the third world where nukes and geothermal are completely irrelevant while ever they keep having FAR more kids than their circumstances can possibly support. or that of our badly failing environment, do you. Taint failing at all. And if you believe that CO2 levels are the problem, nukes fix that much more effectively than geothermal does and they get rid of the **** so many coal fired power stations pump into the environment as well. I suppose $1/kwhr That is a bare faced lie. Neither france or japan spend anything like that for their electricity from nukes. suits your public funded mindset perfectly fine and dandy. Anything uranium can do, thorium can do ten fold better, Wrong with ready to go nukes that have been working fine for decades now. and geothermal at another ten fold better yet. Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys/lies. This topic of "Whats Wrong With NUCLEAR Power" is not a topic of 'Whats Right With NUCLEAR Power'. Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag. reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs I consider the all-inclusive uranium powered reactor as birth-to-grave unacceptable, You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant. whereas thorium being a failsafe alternative that's also much cheaper Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate that claim. and a whole lot cleaner, not to mention nuclear weapons proliferation proof Irrelevant in countrys that already have nukes. (as in how many global trillions in savings is that worth?) Completely worthless with countrys that already have nukes. reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs You should start a topic "Whats Right With NUCLEAR Power", You should go and **** yourself, again. reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs So, you admit that you're not smart enough to start and manage a newsgroup topic of: "Whats Right With NUCLEAR Power" Figures, doesn't it. ~ BG |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why nuclear power is better = solar power stinks | Rich[_1_] | Amateur Astronomy | 29 | November 18th 08 04:55 AM |
OT Russian floating nuclear power plant. | Pat Flannery | Policy | 2 | September 28th 07 08:45 AM |
So... is someone Sabotaging our Nuclear Power Plants? | jonathan | Policy | 0 | April 21st 06 01:41 AM |
CNN article about nuclear power on space probes | quibbler | Policy | 9 | February 28th 04 08:00 PM |
Nuclear power in space | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 5 | August 2nd 03 01:58 AM |