90 replies to this topic

[Chyros]

Hmmm, interesting subject, this is.

I'd definately go for nuclear. Though living right next to a coal plant wouldn't blacken your lungs much (the chimneys will blow the exhaust gases away quite far), it's still much dirtier than a nuke plant. Nuclear power plants nowadays are extremely safe. And in fact, I like the look of those big cooling towers.

I don't understand the fuss about nuclear plants anyway. Radioactive materials will emit radiation anyway, why not simply collect the energy they provide? The environmental effects of nuclear (as well as coal plants, btw) are grossly overestimated anyway.

[Kamikazi]

Nuclear! At school we have poster which says: Ik ben voor nucleare energie! (I vote for nuclear engery)
At the background you see a rotten city which much dead bodies...

[Jamie^]

Nuclear power, although I would try and use solar and wind to its max, and encourage people to install solar panels and mini wind plants on their roofs

[Shirou]

 Waris, on 19 Nov 2007, 14:49, said:

And shuttles carry how much? ANd can they carry them to somehwere safe so that ti does not re-entry, let alone orbit the planet.

It will only be safe if you'd put it on the dark side of the moon. (or well, I mean the side we never see). Just throwing it into space just outside the atmosphere would just cause it to spread across the atmosphere.

I would choose for the Nuclear, but still wouldn't want to live next to any of these two given choices. I like my lungs, and as paranoid as I am, I will avoid even the slightest radiation that ll be coming from that thing.

[Chyros]

 Shirou, on 27 Nov 2007, 20:36, said:

I will avoid even the slightest radiation that ll be coming from that thing.

I probably would too, but radiation dangers are generally overhyped. Radiation from radioactive decay usually either has a reach of a few centimetres, a few metres, or passes almost right through you.

[ChesterM]

This isn't even a contest, Nuclear.

I don't see the big problem of storage of waste, keep it here on earth for now, and later find a nice place on the moon when it is cheap and easy. That way do don't waste a bunch of interesting material that may have uses later.

On a second note, lets say all of the worlds power was suddenly nuclear, how long could we power everything at it current rate before we run out of good uranium?

[Crush3r]

 ChesterM, on 5 Dec 2007, 23:52, said:

This isn't even a contest, Nuclear.

I don't see the big problem of storage of waste, keep it here on earth for now, and later find a nice place on the moon when it is cheap and easy. That way do don't waste a bunch of interesting material that may have uses later.

On a second note, lets say all of the worlds power was suddenly nuclear, how long could we power everything at it current rate before we run out of good uranium?

Don't know, but uranium consumption is minimal, especially with the French recycling system.

[Dauth]

Well the UK could run on positive estimates for about 700 years, yea about that, and then there's recycling and new uranium sources.

[Reaper94]

 General K, on 26 Jun 2007, 0:15, said:

Coal is safer than nuclear.

not strictly true, im no scientist but anything is bad if abused, if sensible people were used in nuclear plants then chances of 2 headed babies being born are slim. I dont dispute that radiation causes cancer, impotency etc...

However all this blah blah about global warming being caused by fossil fuels so a it's healthier for enviroment (gonna /suicide cos i just said that) unless some pleb pours the waste into the local river.

Would rather be in a town with a coal explosion than a nuclear one tho

sorry for necro but just wanted to give some input

[Umbrella Secrets]

I talk to a guy once when I was in a waiting room, and he worked on a Nuclear Submarine. He said are nuclear reactors are so good now, it will be impossiable for it to explode. So I would want to live neer a nuclear reactor, it provides more energy, and there a lot safter than they used to be.

A nuclear reactor in Chyonbal, Ukraine, exploded, but it was also russian made, so it was a piece of junk, and that was only once that a nuclear reactor blew up.

Edited by S.O.PAtomicarmy, 25 March 2008 - 17:45.

[Kichō]

You mean Chernobyl?

Anyway I'd have to go with Nuclear Power as most of China (In the city of Beijing, Tianamen) I live in as most Nuclear power/pollution however I have since grown adapt to it and it's somthing we go through our everyday lives.

Even such Chinese cities as Zhangjiakou,Tianjin,Langfang and Datong most of China is full of Nuclear Reactors so I have to go with Nuclear.

Sorry for posting in a post-necroed topic btw.>.>

[Umbrella Secrets]

 Zhen Ji, on 25 Mar 2008, 14:06, said:

You mean Chernobyl?

Yeah, I always spell that word wrong.

[Dauth]

Chernobyl happened because someone tried to test a safety feature, but in the process did what the new safety feature was designed to prevent.

@Hyuga the background radiation levels near Britain's old nuclear powerplants is still lower than in parts of the country with high amounts of Granite, since the granite releases Radon gas.

Nuclear is safe.

[Chyros]

 Hyuga Hinata, on 25 Mar 2008, 18:00, said:

Would rather be in a town with a coal explosion than a nuclear one tho

I would be too, but the chances of a nuclear reactor exploding mowadays are so slim they're pretty much negligible.

 S.O.PAtomicarmy, on 25 Mar 2008, 18:35, said:

A nuclear reactor in Chyonbal, Ukraine, exploded, but it was also russian made, so it was a piece of junk, and that was only once that a nuclear reactor blew up.

LOL!

Edited by Chyros, 25 March 2008 - 19:23.

[Sgt. Rho]

Nuke. It's safer.

Though, here in spain EVERY newly built house from 2007 MUST have solar cells.

[Penguin_Pyromaniac]

 Hyuga Hinata, on 25 Mar 2008, 10:00, said:

 General K, on 26 Jun 2007, 0:15, said:

Coal is safer than nuclear.

not strictly true, im no scientist but anything is bad if abused, if sensible people were used in nuclear plants then chances of 2 headed babies being born are slim. I dont dispute that radiation causes cancer, impotency etc...

However all this blah blah about global warming being caused by fossil fuels so a it's healthier for enviroment (gonna /suicide cos i just said that) unless some pleb pours the waste into the local river.

Would rather be in a town with a coal explosion than a nuclear one tho

Well, coal causes cancer, too. Radiation is just invisible when it does that. And that freaks me out.

IMO, it depends how close to the plant you are. If it's coal, living anywhere near it sucks.
If it's nuclear, it's very safe, as long as you don't live literally next door to it. Then the 2-headed children will be knocking on your door. Kidding. But there is a significantly elevated risk of cancer if you're within 100 feet of it. Or so I've heard.

[Dauth]

 Dauth, on 25 Mar 2008, 18:24, said:

The background radiation levels near Britain's old nuclear powerplants is still lower than in parts of the country with high amounts of Granite, since the granite releases Radon gas.

*sigh*

You know sometimes I doubt people ever listen to those who have facts at hand. All Nuclear plants have a housing exclusion zone, which, is unnecessary. If you don't want mutations then live underground, seriously cosmic rays have a far higher chance of altering DNA than the stupidly low levels of radiation from nuclear plants.

[Nerdsturm]

 Dauth, on 26 Mar 2008, 2:10, said:

You know sometimes I doubt people ever listen to those who have facts at hand. All Nuclear plants have a housing exclusion zone, which, is unnecessary. If you don't want mutations then live underground, seriously cosmic rays have a far higher chance of altering DNA than the stupidly low levels of radiation from nuclear plants.

Keeping urban sprawl from growing up around nuclear plants is wholly neccesary. Even if the amount of radiation released from these plants is negliable, there is still safety/security concerns with having a lot of people living near a nuclear power plant (not to mention that they are not well recepted in these areas since 3-mile island and chernobly). They might be quite safe, but they still are not suitable for populated areas. Granted, though, niether are coal plants.

[Dr. Strangelove]

 Nerdsturm, on 31 Mar 2008, 1:32, said:

 Dauth, on 26 Mar 2008, 2:10, said:

You know sometimes I doubt people ever listen to those who have facts at hand. All Nuclear plants have a housing exclusion zone, which, is unnecessary. If you don't want mutations then live underground, seriously cosmic rays have a far higher chance of altering DNA than the stupidly low levels of radiation from nuclear plants.

Keeping urban sprawl from growing up around nuclear plants is wholly neccesary. Even if the amount of radiation released from these plants is negliable, there is still safety/security concerns with having a lot of people living near a nuclear power plant (not to mention that they are not well recepted in these areas since 3-mile island and chernobly). They might be quite safe, but they still are not suitable for populated areas. Granted, though, niether are coal plants.

You know what? Why not ban cars from urban areas too.

[Wizard]

Some perspective Strangelove. A nuclear reactor is a wholly different prospect to having cars in an urban environment. The catastrophic consequences of even a minor incident are obvious. Cars are a day to day item. There isn't a need to post stupid extremes everytime you disagree with something (which is usually all the time)

Also, think of the huge depreciation in housing prices around reactors. It's huge!

[Dr. Strangelove]

 Wizard, on 31 Mar 2008, 19:04, said:

Some perspective Strangelove. A nuclear reactor is a wholly different prospect to having cars in an urban environment. The catastrophic consequences of even a minor incident are obvious. Cars are a day to day item. There isn't a need to post stupid extremes everytime you disagree with something (which is usually all the time)

Also, think of the huge depreciation in housing prices around reactors. It's huge!

1:No its not, both are necessary for the maintenance of the benefits modern society gives us.
2:There aren't any "catastrophic" consequences from a minor incident.
3:So is electricity. Oh, wait, that comes from nuclear reactors.
4:I'm just trying to be extremely right.
5:I could care less about depreciation, because that just shows how misinformed people are. I'd live with one in my basement(if it could fit).

[Shirou]

 Dr. Strangelove, on 31 Mar 2008, 21:51, said:

 Wizard, on 31 Mar 2008, 19:04, said:

Some perspective Strangelove. A nuclear reactor is a wholly different prospect to having cars in an urban environment. The catastrophic consequences of even a minor incident are obvious. Cars are a day to day item. There isn't a need to post stupid extremes everytime you disagree with something (which is usually all the time)

Also, think of the huge depreciation in housing prices around reactors. It's huge!

1:No its not, both are necessary for the maintenance of the benefits modern society gives us.
2:There aren't any "catastrophic" consequences from a minor incident.
3:So is electricity. Oh, wait, that comes from nuclear reactors.
4:I'm just trying to be extremely right.
5:I could care less about depreciation, because that just shows how misinformed people are. I'd live with one in my basement(if it could fit).

Cars kill us slowly. They don't pose a threat to society. They kill people, yes, but not the society. A nuclear reactor is not dangerous and never kills us, until it 'fails'. No, with not catastrophic consequences, with cataclysmic ones...

People are not going to seriously depreciate a house because a car with a drunk lunatic might drive right into it, but they are going to when there's a nuclear reactor, for some reason -.-, at which I agree with point five.

It's the cooking frog principe. When a frog is put in to boiling water it will jump out immediatly. (same goes with the reactors, they boil at once, and the people preventively jump out of the area). But if you put it in cold water and cook the water slowly, the frog will stay and eventually die off the heat. Yet with cars, you don't even notice what they are doing. So you'll just don't care and go on with your life until some day it will all get back to you.

Edited by Aftershock, 31 March 2008 - 20:36.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Thing about worrying about an accident that could actually harm you at a modern nuclear reactor is that it is so unlikely you might as well buy insurance against a meteor attack.

[Zero]

I go nuclear, it makes so much power that the energy would be almost free. Also, if a nuclear plant goes bad, 99% of the time it'll just be fall out which can be easily escaped from. If a coal plant goes up, however, it would be the equivilent of a mini nuke and IMPOSSIBLE to survive from.