90 replies to this topic

[Dauth]

tskasa1, on 15 May 2008, 22:12, said:

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.

Um, no, fission plants still need power to run, the idea of free electricity was sold to the British in the 70's trust me on this we still pay for electricity, and given the stupidly high fuel costs even if fusion worked tomorrow, someone somewhere would be charging you an arm and a leg for it.

[markintellect]

Nightshadow, on 26 Jun 2007, 0:27, said:

Imagine this, the city is commissioning a power plant at your position. What would you choose? It's one or the other.

I say Nuke, they are safer, and cleaner. They have steam coming out of the cooling towers instead of black thick smog/smoke. They have billions of safety features making it virtually or physically impossible for another Chernobyl, and the rods are regulated as well as far as I know. The waste is transported on reinforced trains with reserved tracks (IIRC). And they can cut power to a core/thing if in the unlikely event that the thing does go haywire. So My choice, is Nuclear. "Green is Good"


I know a thread like this exists, but I wanted to rediscuss it. So please no "omg this already been made lol"

If they were the only option then I would choose nuclear, as it is better in the short term, and coal isn't good at all. The only problem is that the tracks aren't reserved in most cases, for example in britain the Sellafield Processing facility is sent nuclear waste on unguarded routes along normal tracks. A reporter managed to attach a fake bomb to one of the cars as proof of the lax security. In the long term I would have one single Maglev wind turbine which can produce the power of 1000 conventional ones, a massive solar plant in the middle of the desert, and wave energy devices in the roughest seas on the planet.

[Dr. Strangelove]

markintellect, on 27 May 2008, 20:51, said:

Nightshadow, on 26 Jun 2007, 0:27, said:

Imagine this, the city is commissioning a power plant at your position. What would you choose? It's one or the other.

I say Nuke, they are safer, and cleaner. They have steam coming out of the cooling towers instead of black thick smog/smoke. They have billions of safety features making it virtually or physically impossible for another Chernobyl, and the rods are regulated as well as far as I know. The waste is transported on reinforced trains with reserved tracks (IIRC). And they can cut power to a core/thing if in the unlikely event that the thing does go haywire. So My choice, is Nuclear. "Green is Good"


I know a thread like this exists, but I wanted to rediscuss it. So please no "omg this already been made lol"

If they were the only option then I would choose nuclear, as it is better in the short term, and coal isn't good at all. The only problem is that the tracks aren't reserved in most cases, for example in britain the Sellafield Processing facility is sent nuclear waste on unguarded routes along normal tracks. A reporter managed to attach a fake bomb to one of the cars as proof of the lax security. In the long term I would have one single Maglev wind turbine which can produce the power of 1000 conventional ones, a massive solar plant in the middle of the desert, and wave energy devices in the roughest seas on the planet.

Maglev turbine?

[NergiZed]

Nuke; coal is bad all the time, spewing out lots of bad stuff. Nuke is only bad when it's not running correctly, and modern nuke plants generally are so full with redundant safety mechanisms that it would very unlikely that a explosion will occur. (Unlike Chernobyl where the scientists were all like:" Hey, our nuke plant is old and crap, lets see what happens when we shut off the cooling systems AND the failsafe! Teeheehee. *BOOM*)

Also, there's already a nuke plant about 20 miles from my place, so it wouldn't make that much of a difference. (In fact, I wish the US build more now, because I beleive every single nuke plant in the US is operating beyond it's designed lifespan. =( )

[Rumpullpus]

nuclear reactors spew out a lot worse shit then coal ever can, you know what that is? nuclear waste.
where do you think all that nuclear water goes after cooling the reactors? it doesnt go back into a river thats for sure. it goes into a underground bunker hundereds of feet below ground and it sits their for thousands of years.

atlest with coal plants you can put filters and even pump the CO2 deep into the ground so that it doesnt effect the planet. radioactive waste is much MUCH worse and nearly impossible to clean up.

i actually know where a nuclear plant dumps all their fuckin waste because it polluted parts of my state because they put the bunker next to a fuckin river (god my government is smart "sarcam btw") luckly no one lives anywhere close it it but still you cant get within 1000 feet of the place without a suit.

the US has more coal then the arabs have oil. and you can make oil out of coal. it just makes more fuckin since for (atlest the US) us to build more clean coal plants.

Edited by Rumpullpus, 30 May 2008 - 16:56.

[markintellect]

Dr. Strangelove, on 27 May 2008, 20:54, said:

markintellect, on 27 May 2008, 20:51, said:

Nightshadow, on 26 Jun 2007, 0:27, said:

Imagine this, the city is commissioning a power plant at your position. What would you choose? It's one or the other.

I say Nuke, they are safer, and cleaner. They have steam coming out of the cooling towers instead of black thick smog/smoke. They have billions of safety features making it virtually or physically impossible for another Chernobyl, and the rods are regulated as well as far as I know. The waste is transported on reinforced trains with reserved tracks (IIRC). And they can cut power to a core/thing if in the unlikely event that the thing does go haywire. So My choice, is Nuclear. "Green is Good"


I know a thread like this exists, but I wanted to rediscuss it. So please no "omg this already been made lol"

If they were the only option then I would choose nuclear, as it is better in the short term, and coal isn't good at all. The only problem is that the tracks aren't reserved in most cases, for example in britain the Sellafield Processing facility is sent nuclear waste on unguarded routes along normal tracks. A reporter managed to attach a fake bomb to one of the cars as proof of the lax security. In the long term I would have one single Maglev wind turbine which can produce the power of 1000 conventional ones, a massive solar plant in the middle of the desert, and wave energy devices in the roughest seas on the planet.

Maglev turbine?

http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/maglev-...ormal-windmill/

[NergiZed]

Rumpullpus, on 30 May 2008, 17:54, said:

nuclear reactors spew out a lot worse shit then coal ever can, you know what that is? nuclear waste.
where do you think all that nuclear water goes after cooling the reactors? it doesnt go back into a river thats for sure. it goes into a underground bunker hundereds of feet below ground and it sits their for thousands of years.

atlest with coal plants you can put filters and even pump the CO2 deep into the ground so that it doesnt effect the planet. radioactive waste is much MUCH worse and nearly impossible to clean up.

i actually know where a nuclear plant dumps all their fuckin waste because it polluted parts of my state because they put the bunker next to a fuckin river (god my government is smart "sarcam btw") luckly no one lives anywhere close it it but still you cant get within 1000 feet of the place without a suit.

the US has more coal then the arabs have oil. and you can make oil out of coal. it just makes more fuckin since for (atlest the US) us to build more clean coal plants.

♪ ♪ Nuclear waste - just shoot it into outer space. ♪ ♪

Edited by NergiZed, 08 June 2008 - 21:32.

[̀̀̀̀█]

Nuclear waste does not exist, a it itself can be used as fuel, making it.. Not waste.

[Destiny]

Define the meaning of 'Nuclear Waste' I wonder where the nuclear waste goes when shot to space, and what happens to it...as of now, Coal is affecting the Earth more adversly than the Nuclear.

Coal = Carbon Dioxide...global warming and O-zone thinning...plus there's thousands of them in the world.
Nuke = Can't do much shit to pollute the Earth properly. Blabla dump waste bla.

[NergiZed]

Destiny, on 9 Jun 2008, 11:23, said:

Define the meaning of 'Nuclear Waste' I wonder where the nuclear waste goes when shot to space, and what happens to it...as of now, Coal is affecting the Earth more adversly than the Nuclear.

Coal = Carbon Dioxide...global warming and O-zone thinning...plus there's thousands of them in the world.
Nuke = Can't do much shit to pollute the Earth properly. Blabla dump waste bla.

Nuke is only bad when it asplodes. Also, the production of non-fissable radioactive material can be reduced by making type 4 reactors (they "burn" more "cleanly").

With coal it's round the clock CO2, and while CO2 is not the worst greenhouse gas (Methane is far worse), it is produced in a quantity that needs a little some A LOT of attention. Carbon capture sort of works, but it only delays the problem. Carbon credits are a pile of ass, or at least I think so.

And going back to what would happen if we shot nuclear waste into outer space: not much. The most probably thing is that it would float through space until it either starts to orbit the sun, or leaves the solar system to float through deep space for an eternity. If it stays in the solar system, than I guess there's a minute chance that it could hit something eventually and spill all that crap all over the place. Radioactive material in SPACE!? OH NOES!

Now that I think of it, shooting it into the sun would be a good idea as well. (the only bead part is that "sun" doesn't really rhyme with "nuclear waste").

[Chyros]

̀̀̀̀█, on 9 Jun 2008, 5:58, said:

Nuclear waste does not exist, a it itself can be used as fuel, making it.. Not waste.

Indeed, technically speaking, fully spent radioactive material has become simple lead.

[Libains]

Easy - nuclear. I have the uttermost faith in science - hence why I would not worry, and in all honesty, what with me having to listen to music pretty much 24/7, I feel that it is only fair to get the cheaper electrictiy.

[The Wandering Jew]

I have quite a personal reason for this.

I want the Philippines to have a nuke plant within the Capital, so that when sh*t happens there'll be a major radioactive leakage.

And that leakage will go to the homes.

And to the very home of the stupid b*tch called ex-girlfriend.

And that would cause very painful damage indeed. Ahh, yes. Slow and painful death.

And I don't give a f*ck on the baby. It's NOT MY CHILD! (with intense hatred)

Lol. :wahhhhhaa:

No, seriously, the rate of accidents (and pollution) in a nuke plant is considerably smaller than that of a coal-fired power plant, that is, if the operation goes smoothly.

(P.S. I am drinking a beer right now, and I'm giving y'all a toast. Bottoms up!)

[Chyros]

The Wandering Jew, on 14 Jun 2008, 6:48, said:

(P.S. I am drinking a beer right now, and I'm giving y'all a toast. Bottoms up!)

That is somewhat noticeable, but cheers anyway .

The Wandering Jew, on 14 Jun 2008, 6:48, said:

I have quite a personal reason for this.
No, seriously, the rate of accidents (and pollution) in a nuke plant is considerably smaller than that of a coal-fired power plant, that is, if the operation goes smoothly.

It's not really that coal plants have many accidents or anything, it's the huge amount of filth they spit out that causes people harm.

[The Wandering Jew]

@^:

And it does.

[Flechette?]

I would chose nuclear any day. But due to the media, there's always mass hysteria and storm in a tea cup controverse about nuclear power plants and chernobyl again. Coal is somewhat reliable and safe (in the same way a farmer can use wolves to hunt foxes eating their stock) but is spewing constantly that cloud of progessive death.

Quote

♪ ♪ Nuclear waste - just shoot it into outer space. ♪ ♪

For anyone who has watched Dilbert (the comic is equally awesome) this reminds me the episode where the PHB says polluting outer space is negative connotations and subtly interchanges it with "advertising" (considering spam and junk mail, well justified).