[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]
>> | No. 3633
3633
What is your opinion on nuclear energy? |
>> | No. 3634
3634
Clean, safe, essential. Without it advanced civilisation would grind to a halt over the next 100 years when we run out of oil, similar to how the oil revolution saved us from running out of wood. |
>> | No. 3635
3635
>>3634 |
>> | No. 3636
3636
>>3635 |
>> | No. 3637
3637
>>3636 |
>> | No. 3638
3638
>>3634 |
>> | No. 3639
3639
>>3637 |
>> | No. 3640
3640
Risky, expensive, not sustainable, not necessary, not even a solution for our energy needs, given all the stations currently being built won't be operational for decades. |
>> | No. 3641
3641
Chart7[1].jpg >>3635 |
>> | No. 3642
3642
Since 1986 there has been one major nuclear incident at a power station; but the method of power generation was not at fault. As others have said, it was poor quality coastal defence paired with an absolutely catastrophic earthquake and poor positioning. |
>> | No. 3643
3643
power.jpg >>3642 |
>> | No. 3644
3644
>>3642 |
>> | No. 3645
3645
>>3644 |
>> | No. 3646
3646
>>3645 |
>> | No. 3647
3647
alGore_1515233c[1].jpg >>3643 |
>> | No. 3648
3648
>>3647 |
>> | No. 3649
3649
>>3648 |
>> | No. 3650
3650
When discussing nuclear power, people rarely acknowledge the basic fact of technological process. We talk about Chernobyl or Three Mile Island as examples of the dangers of nuclear power, rather than of the dangers of completely obsolete nuclear technology. Fukuskima Daiichi was built in 1971, based on a design that was already far from state-of-the-art. It's as if when discuss the risks and benefits of cars, we take as our benchmark the Morris Minor. |
>> | No. 3651
3651
>>3650 |
>> | No. 3652
3652
>>3642 |
>> | No. 3653
3653
>>3634 |
>> | No. 3654
3654
>>3653 |
>> | No. 3655
3655
>>3652 |
>> | No. 3656
3656
>>3652 |
>> | No. 3657
3657
>>3656 |
>> | No. 3659
3659
>>3655 |
>> | No. 3660
3660
>>3655 |
>> | No. 3661
3661
>>3659 |
>> | No. 3662
3662
The avoidable deaths discussion is somewhat asinine when you consider 160,000 people die from lung cancer alone in the US and 250,000 are diagnosed with it, overwhelmingly due to smoking. I say that as a smoker. |
>> | No. 3664
3664
>>3662 |
>> | No. 3665
3665
>>3655 |
>> | No. 3666
3666
>>3664 |
>> | No. 3667
3667
>>3665 |
>> | No. 3670
3670
>>3667 |
>> | No. 3671
3671
That Plutonium looks cosy, I wish had some to huddle round on a chilly winters night. And then kill me in my sleep after I drift off in front of it. |
>> | No. 3672
3672
>What is your opinion on nuclear energy? |
>> | No. 3673
3673
>>3672 |
>> | No. 3674
3674
>>3672 |
>> | No. 3675
3675
>>3667 |
>> | No. 3676
3676
>>3675 |
>> | No. 3677
3677
>>3673 |
>> | No. 3678
3678
I've been reading Stephen Baxter again and I think we should get to mining Uranus for hydrogen. It would also solve the impending helium crisis. |
>> | No. 3679
3679
>>3678 |
>> | No. 3680
3680
>>3679 |
>> | No. 3681
3681
>>3680 |
>> | No. 3682
3682
InRodWeTrust.jpg >>3680 |
>> | No. 3683
3683
>>3679>>3680 |
>> | No. 3684
3684
nl.gif >>3683 |
>> | No. 3716
3716
>>3684 |
>> | No. 3717
3717
>>3716 |
>> | No. 3718
3718
>>3717 |
>> | No. 3719
3719
If we invent fusion, can we fission uranium then fuse it together, then fission it again? |
>> | No. 3720
3720
binding_energy.gif >>3719 |
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Delete Post [] Password |