90 replies to this topic

[Areze]

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"

[smooder]

Coal.
Nuclear BAAD!

but solar, waveor wind if i had a better choice.

[MR.Kim]

Coal is safer than nuclear.

[Warbz]

Nuke,

Nukes are pretty.

but in the long run we need something that is safer for the ebviroment, the contuation of coal power plants and such is likely to eradicate the human race (via gloabal enviromental disaster or somthing).

[Areze]

Okay. Enjoy getting Black lung. to the first posts. Coal is notoriously filthy and actually isn't safe at all. Coal sucks.

Nuclear plants have hundreds of safety features and lockdown overrides to prevent meltdown. They are like Fort Knox. The smoke is steam. Boiled Water.

Smooder: How is Nuclear Bad? 1 GOOD reason why. The waste is transported in Reinforced Guarded Trains last I heard of here.

@Warbz:
Gotta agree, but it ain't a long run thing, but Nuke will last us longer then coal.

[Nerdsturm]

Nightshadow, on 25 Jun 2007, 17:26, said:

Okay. Enjoy getting Black lung. to the first posts. Coal is notoriously filthy and actually isn't safe at all. Coal sucks.

Coal is less safe for workers, but a plant wouldn't pose a health risk to anyone else. The costs of construction and fuel for coal plants are also quite cheap. However, as I've said in the other topic on this subject, I live not too far from a nuclear plant, and expanding that would make more sense than building a whole new plant. Also, because environmental restrictions placed on emissions from plants are getting stricter where I live, it may be a safer investment to build a plant that won't constantly have to be upgraded with better air scrubbers and the like.

[Areze]

When you say air scrubbers, do you mean the Coal Plant? I know that they are less dangerous to normal people then workers but the workers might be from the area. And the steam from Nuke Plants aren't close to as ugly as Coal's is.

[Eddy01741]

I'm not sure, Coal is gonna create a bad environment, but nuclear powerplants, although quite safe now, IF something like Chernobyl were to happen (which is like one in a BAGZILIFJSLFKJLWEROWOERWEZILLION), then the concequences would be much worse.

I am leaning towards nuclear, but probably if this happened, I'd be looking to sell my house before it happened.

[Dauth]

Nuclear, the radiation levels of one a safe (EU guidelines) distance from my hosue woudl still be lower than in Derbyshire or Devon.

@Eddy as soon as its mentioned your house would lose value.

[Zeke]

Nuke for me

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

Coal is safer than nuclear.

More people died of coal mining accidents and black lung, than any nuke power related accidents

[Waris]

Nuke plant it is.

It does not matter how much air scrubbers you stuffed in the chimneys of a coal plant. The fact stands that the emitted gases will always be more harmful than... what, water vapour?

And no shit with Chernobyl either. People make mistakes now and ever, but they do learn from them.

[General]

Waris, on 26 Jun 2007, 10:47, said:

Nuke plant it is.

It does not matter how much air scrubbers you stuffed in the chimneys of a coal plant. The fact stands that the emitted gases will always be more harmful than... what, water vapour?

And no shit with Chernobyl either. People make mistakes now and ever, but they do learn from them.

Me agree with all three .

[Eddy01741]

Dauth, on 26 Jun 2007, 5:17, said:

Nuclear, the radiation levels of one a safe (EU guidelines) distance from my hosue woudl still be lower than in Derbyshire or Devon.

@Eddy as soon as its mentioned your house would lose value.

I know, but I would still attempt to sell it lol.

[CoLT]

I vote Nuclear for the simple reason that it is cleaner and more environmentally friendly than Coal.

I know that Nuclear disasters (ala Chernobyl) can potentially happen, however, these are rare. If a Coal station was put into place near my home I'd have to deal with the sudden deterioation of the air quality as well as having to repaint my house every year or so because it's being covered by coal dust.

Nuclear Power all the way.... until something better comes along.

[Whitey]

Ball me up with the nuclear plant. Its clean and generally safe. If there's an issue I could always leave. Besides, coal plants' smoke is brutal.

[Alias]

Wind farm.

[AfterFlash]

Nuke FTW!

Because anytime you want to see an awesome explosion, a coal plant just don't explode right.

[G-sus]

the only things i fear near modern nuclear powerplants are terrorists and greenpeace...

[Areze]

Greenpeace can be defeated by bricks and torches. Terrorists can be defeated by adequate security and competent guards.

[Comr4de]

Coal is naturally cheaper but pollutes and has health risks in the long run.

Nuclear power would be my choice, its regulated to be keept safe and produces far more power than Coal could ever do. It is clean with the right maintanace but is it expensive to run due to that. In the long run though, Nuclear is the way to go.

[CodeCat]

Honestly I think both are rotten apples, but if I had to pick I'd pick a nuclear plant. It's cleaner to the environment. And as long as it's safe and well-regulated there's no problem.

Better yet though is a wind/solar power plant. If people would put solar panels on their roofs it would make a big difference. And if people complain about the view when they get windmills in their back garden, they're thinking more of their own view than of the environment...

[CoLT]

Quote

And if people complain about the view when they get windmills in their back garden, they're thinking more of their own view than of the environment...

QFT


Too many ppl don't think of the fact that the 'view' they want is entirely dependant on the health of the environment. After all, a polluted landscape that looks utterly wasted is not much of a view.

[DerKrieger]

Nuke power is best and safest...coal is too polluting, and solar/wind power is sadly not efficient enough for widespread use.

[Whitey]

Solar and Wind are really not the best sources of power. Environmentally friendly sure, but space-consuming or expensive and thus not on my list of good and effective sources of energy.

[Ascendancy]

I'm going with a nuclear power plant. Sure it might be more expensive to run versus a coal power plant, but the output generated far exceeds a coal one.

As for Nevada, as far as I have heard we are using geothermal sources to power some of northern Nevada.