Discuss Your Views on Generating Electricity
FIGHT!
|
It murders babies, and prays to Satan. The real question is, what does it pray for?
|
It's good as long as they keep it far away from areas with high population denities.
Or the weapons? Dismantle them and prohibit nuclear arms research. Seems like the only way to accomplish that is to have a one-world order to keep every nation in check. |
It worries me. Whilst they do claim that it's efficient, I want to know where they plan to put the waste when it gets to the point where they can no longer dump it under the sea. They certainly couldn't put it into unused mines and the likes - it could get into the water supply.
|
As long as no waste is put under my house, I don't grow a third arm and nothing explodes, i'm fine with it.
|
|
:
|
:
|
Also it's retardedly costly.
Nucelar power is cool until you know about all of the weird shit in Chernobyl. Fuck Nuclear power. |
:
:
:
But I do agree with the rest of your thesis. Nuclear safety technology has progressed lightyears since Chernobyl. The chance of an accident is now incredibly low. On the other hand, it will definately do wonders to combat global warming, especially in a country like Australia where most of our electricity comes from coal. Unfortunately, our government (in pre-election effort at populism) swore never to allow nuclear power here. |
nz = nuclear free = good
|
Where does NZ get its electricity from?
|
Nuclear power...it's horrible, it kills, it mutates...
But DAMN, mushroom clouds can be beautiful:D! |
I'd rather look at a nice tree than a mushroom cloud. Similar shape, but more beautiful.
|
:
|
I thought it was from Kakapos.
Just kidding, that makes New Zealand sound like even more of a utopia. |
it isn't really, it's just how shit should be done. none of that nuclear bs and definitely none of that stupid:
:
|
:
|
at least we're not nuclear!
nyeh |
Anything has got to be then fossil fules. Thats where 95% of my county's power comes from and we produce the most carbon emissions per person.
|
I second the indifference thing. Just... put it on a mountain or something and dump the waste into like, a controlled reservoir or something. Or launch it into space.
|
Or chuck it in an active volcano...
|
BOOM MUSHROOM CLOUD! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! BOOMBOOM LOLOLOL!!!
And that's what I think of nuclear powah. |
MarsMudoken, that is spam and you are receiving an infraction.
|
I don't think nuclear energy should be dismissed so easily, there is great potential in Thorium-based reactors, and I believe Australia would do well to invest in researching such a possibility.
Alcar... |
I think SOLAR TOWERS are the way to go, and Australia definitely has enough room. As for Nuclear, I don't know much about it, so I wouldn't go any further than IT SOUNDS DANGEROUS for fear of embarrassing myself by saying something stupid.
|
Then build inland, and invest further into cuprate (or Fe) superconducting materials to stem the loss of energy from the reactors to the grid.
Alcar... |
And invest in geothermal.
|
I've heard about them burying the waste between tectonic plates so that it is dragged into the Earth's mantle.
|
Geothermal and hydro energy are two options I didn't consider but would be my next choice aside from nuclear. A hydro dam can produce shitloads of energy when put in the right spot, but you're relying on tides and a constant flow of water into the lake behind the dam.
For example, when I went to Las Vegas we also visited Hoover Dam. There I learned that, for one, not a single watt of power produced there goes to Las Vegas, though it's one of the closest cities in the region. Most of the power in fact goes out of state. Never got around to asking why that is exactly. Also the water level of Lake Mead has been dropping significantly. It's not filling quick enough and they predict that, at the current rate of consumption, the lake will be completely empty by 2020. Windmills however have the most shit efficiency of any power producing means out there. It costs like 4 - 7 million euro to build just 1 windmill. That one windmill can only power a few hundred households, meaning that entire windmill farms are needed to power a small town. I dunno, but if you build 70 of those mills, you could have spend that money on building two nuclear power plans and still have money to spare. In fact, if they would have put the combined budget of 1 windmill park into cold fusion research, they would be done by now! |
I usually just let people who are smarter than I am figure this stuff out. I would say that I like the results so far, but that might just be because I'm not smart enough to understand them.
|
In Italy they're going to open new nuclear power plants of third generation... oh my God I don't want them!!!
|
Third generation?
|
You should be glad AiN; you know they're going to be better than the first or second generation designs.
Hydro is a good option if the dams already exist; building new dams is incredibly costly and terrible for the environment. I read a while back about some guy who wanted to build fields full of Stirling Engines in the desert. The advantage here is that each one is fairly cheap, easy to maintain and needs nothing more than heat to operate; it doesn't even need direct sunlight like solar panels do. The guy was looking for money from small investors; mom-and-pop put in a few grand, buy one engine in the field and get a slow but steady income from the electricity generated. I have no idea whether it will end up being cost effective, but I love it as an idea anyway. |
Alright I'm sorry for that last response. It WAS childish. What I meant by that sentance was although I think nuclear power is unclean, nukes are so amazing that I think so long as it's used to blow stuff up, go ahead.
There Nate. |
Why is Nuclear Power unclean?
Can you name the last time there has been a nuclear accident? Have you researched modern reactor designs and the many safety mechanisms that are now in use. Don't just make blanket statements based on emotional rhetoric and an absence of fact. |
|
Electrical Generation? Wasn't that the generation that followed shortly after Edison's invention of the lightbulb?
I would hardly classify the modern generation by "electricity" as I would by the internet or the invention of the fucking iPod. I think the Nuclear generation is officially considered to be behind us now. Much to Apple's chagrin, they pretty much own this generation and the next few to come. Do I like dependency on electronics? No, but who does? Do I think it's ruining society? No, not at all, but I don't feel it's bettering society as much as it has the potential to. Do I think our dependency on electronics is going to result in an I-Robot or Matrix? Dunno, but I would find it pretty damn hilarious if we let such a cliche happen. |
One of my teachers at school always told us that the modern age would be remembered in the history books as 'The Plastic Age' before anything else. How lame would it be to tell our grandchildren 'We lived in the Plastic Generation!'?
|
Your teacher has a point though. Plastic is fuckin' huge and it really did revolutionize the materialism industry. It's pretty much the most malleable, durable, cheap substance used for construction purposes today, and it will be for years to come. I predict it will be another several thousand years before we develop another such miracle product.
|