Discuss Your Views on Generating Electricity

MeechMunchie · #1 12-14-2009, 09:17 AM

FIGHT!

OANST · #2 12-14-2009, 09:22 AM

It murders babies, and prays to Satan. The real question is, what does it pray for?

used:) · #3 12-14-2009, 09:22 AM

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.

OddjobAbe · #4 12-14-2009, 09:36 AM

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.

Josh · #5 12-14-2009, 09:42 AM

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.

Disgruntled Intern · #6 12-14-2009, 09:51 AM

I'm indifferent.

Havoc · #7 12-14-2009, 10:05 AM

:

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.

Launch it into space for all I care. Nuclear energy is, right now, the only 'clean' powersource we have that doesn't require 10.000 windmills or solarpanels on an area as big as Texas to power 250.000 homes. Until the first cold fusion plant opens up, this is what we're stuck with.

OddjobAbe · #8 12-14-2009, 10:11 AM

:

Launch it into space for all I care.

This would be wrong. You can't launch every problem into space. It is bound to be harmful to some other environment.

Mac Sirloin · #9 12-14-2009, 12:24 PM

Also it's retardedly costly.

Nucelar power is cool until you know about all of the weird shit in Chernobyl.

Fuck Nuclear power.

***Nate*** · #10 12-14-2009, 02:23 PM

:

It's good as long as they keep it far away from areas with high population denities.

Except they need to be close to areas of high population densities, otherwise too much power is lost in the transmission lines.

:

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.

Except that they haven't been dumping it in to the sea for decades. Mines should be fine when the waste is encased in several inches of steel and then several metres of concrete.

:

Launch it into space for all I care. Nuclear energy is, right now, the only 'clean' powersource we have that doesn't require 10.000 windmills or solarpanels on an area as big as Texas to power 250.000 homes. Until the first cold fusion plant opens up, this is what we're stuck with.

Except, you know, for the rockets that fail on takeoff and then either explode or crash land. Goodbye Cape Canaveral!

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.

Leto · #11 12-14-2009, 02:51 PM

nz = nuclear free = good

***Nate*** · #12 12-14-2009, 02:56 PM

Where does NZ get its electricity from?

MarsMudoken · #13 12-14-2009, 02:57 PM

Nuclear power...it's horrible, it kills, it mutates...

But DAMN, mushroom clouds can be beautiful

!

OddjobAbe · #14 12-14-2009, 03:00 PM

I'd rather look at a nice tree than a mushroom cloud. Similar shape, but more beautiful.

Leto · #15 12-14-2009, 03:04 PM

:

Where does NZ get its electricity from?

mostly hydro + wind, and fossil fuels

used:) · #16 12-14-2009, 03:05 PM

I thought it was from Kakapos.

Just kidding, that makes New Zealand sound like even more of a utopia.

Leto · #17 12-14-2009, 03:14 PM

it isn't really, it's just how shit should be done. none of that nuclear bs and definitely none of that stupid:

:

Nuclear energy is, right now, the only 'clean' powersource we have that doesn't require 10.000 windmills or solarpanels on an area as big as Texas to power 250.000 homes. Until the first cold fusion plant opens up, this is what we're stuck wit

phobic bs

***Nate*** · #18 12-14-2009, 03:20 PM

:

it isn't really, it's just how shit should be done.

Except for the fossil fuels bit.

Leto · #19 12-14-2009, 03:36 PM

at least we're not nuclear!

nyeh

moxco · #20 12-14-2009, 04:22 PM

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.

Anonyman! · #21 12-14-2009, 04:36 PM

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.

moxco · #22 12-14-2009, 07:15 PM

Or chuck it in an active volcano...

MarsMudoken · #23 12-14-2009, 07:16 PM

BOOM MUSHROOM CLOUD! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! BOOMBOOM LOLOLOL!!!

And that's what I think of nuclear powah.

***Nate*** · #24 12-14-2009, 08:13 PM

MarsMudoken, that is spam and you are receiving an infraction.

***Alcar*** · #25 12-14-2009, 08:25 PM

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...

enchilado · #26 12-14-2009, 08:27 PM

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.

***Alcar*** · #27 12-14-2009, 08:36 PM

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...

***Nate*** · #28 12-14-2009, 10:33 PM

And invest in geothermal.

shaman · #29 12-15-2009, 02:34 AM

I've heard about them burying the waste between tectonic plates so that it is dragged into the Earth's mantle.

Havoc · #30 12-15-2009, 06:18 AM

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!