Nuclear energy is the way of the future.
-
I just did some reading about nuclear power and reprocessing and I am impressed. It is definitely a sure fire way to extinguish our need for foreign oil and will make the global warming a laughing matter. The really neat thing about nuclear is that once the fuel is depleted it can be reprocessed and used again (only 5% of the fuel is lost during the reprocessing). So with 95% of the waste being reused as fuel again we have very efficient power. We can then easily produce hydrogen for vehicles without producing CO2. If the environmentalists would just let up and and stop lobbying then we could fight "global warming" and high energy prices without destroying the economy and taking Americas freedom. We must go forward with nuclear power.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
crikey - you left out that its also the safest of the major power sources,less peopel die per TW generated than any other major source (wind and solar excluded because they are nto yet major sources) the lefties/greenies wont like you matie ;) bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
-
U.S. Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush have all used this pronunciation[^] Mate, it was a joke, take a deep breath and lighten up a bit
System.IO.Path.IsPathRooted() does not behave as I would expect
bad australian *BAD* - go sit in a corner and stop winding up the septics bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
-
bad australian *BAD* - go sit in a corner and stop winding up the septics bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
bryce wrote:
bad australian *BAD* - go sit in a corner and stop winding up the septics
:) We have the majority of the worlds Uranium under our bums as we speak. Im all for a few reactors up there in banana bender land
System.IO.Path.IsPathRooted() does not behave as I would expect
-
I just did some reading about nuclear power and reprocessing and I am impressed. It is definitely a sure fire way to extinguish our need for foreign oil and will make the global warming a laughing matter. The really neat thing about nuclear is that once the fuel is depleted it can be reprocessed and used again (only 5% of the fuel is lost during the reprocessing). So with 95% of the waste being reused as fuel again we have very efficient power. We can then easily produce hydrogen for vehicles without producing CO2. If the environmentalists would just let up and and stop lobbying then we could fight "global warming" and high energy prices without destroying the economy and taking Americas freedom. We must go forward with nuclear power.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
Captain See Sharp wrote:
I just did some reading ... and I am impressed.
You did? Wow, I am impressed too!:-D But don't work too hard, no one is expecting you to understand it, ok?;)
'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'
GK Chesterton -
Captain See Sharp wrote:
I just did some reading about nuclear power and reprocessing and I am impressed. It is definitely a sure fire way to extinguish our need for foreign oil
This is the problem with you. You just do *some* reading and you get impressed. How do you think you can cut down on oil imports with nuclear energy? Do you want vehicles to run on nuclear power? I can't imagine what happens on a collision. :omg:
Captain See Sharp wrote:
and will make the global warming a laughing matter.
WTF has global warming to do with this?
Captain See Sharp wrote:
We can then easily produce hydrogen for vehicles without producing CO2.
Can you be a little more clear?
Captain See Sharp wrote:
We must go forward with nuclear power.
In what regards, actually? Is America not using nuclear power at all?
Absence is to love what wind is to fire; it extinguishes the small, it enkindles the great - Comte Debussy-Rabutin
brahmma wrote:
Do you want vehicles to run on nuclear power?
The premise is they'll run on hydrogen produced by electrolysing water using nuclear generated electricity.
brahmma wrote:
WTF has global warming to do with this?
Generating electricity using nuclear power doesn't produce green house gases which are presumed to contribute to global warming.
brahmma wrote:
Captain See Sharp wrote: We can then easily produce hydrogen for vehicles without producing CO2. Can you be a little more clear?
If we're going to power vehicles (and other things) with hydrogen, it has to come from somewhere. One way is reforming natural gas or other hydrocarbons but that also produces carbon dioxide. If you use fossil fuel electric plants to generate electricity to electrolyse water into hydrogen, that also generates carbon dioxide as well as other pollution. Nuclear generated electricity does not.
brahmma wrote:
Is America not using nuclear power at all?
While 20% of our electricity is nuclear, no new plants have been ordered since 1978.
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance idiots like CSS.
-
brahmma wrote:
Do you want vehicles to run on nuclear power?
The premise is they'll run on hydrogen produced by electrolysing water using nuclear generated electricity.
brahmma wrote:
WTF has global warming to do with this?
Generating electricity using nuclear power doesn't produce green house gases which are presumed to contribute to global warming.
brahmma wrote:
Captain See Sharp wrote: We can then easily produce hydrogen for vehicles without producing CO2. Can you be a little more clear?
If we're going to power vehicles (and other things) with hydrogen, it has to come from somewhere. One way is reforming natural gas or other hydrocarbons but that also produces carbon dioxide. If you use fossil fuel electric plants to generate electricity to electrolyse water into hydrogen, that also generates carbon dioxide as well as other pollution. Nuclear generated electricity does not.
brahmma wrote:
Is America not using nuclear power at all?
While 20% of our electricity is nuclear, no new plants have been ordered since 1978.
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance idiots like CSS.
Tim Craig wrote:
The premise is they'll run on hydrogen produced by electrolysing water using nuclear generated electricity.
What about the existing 99.999999% of vehicles that run on gasoline/petrol/diesel/gas? Ban? Or can they be transformed to adopt to the new technology? What measures would be taken to handle nuclear waste if new plants are set up?
Love is like pi - natural, irrational and very important - Lisa Hoffman
-
Tim Craig wrote:
The premise is they'll run on hydrogen produced by electrolysing water using nuclear generated electricity.
What about the existing 99.999999% of vehicles that run on gasoline/petrol/diesel/gas? Ban? Or can they be transformed to adopt to the new technology? What measures would be taken to handle nuclear waste if new plants are set up?
Love is like pi - natural, irrational and very important - Lisa Hoffman
> What measures would be taken to handle nuclear waste if new plants are set up? Put it in a rocket and send it to space. Also for fun we could aim to the Sun.
-
> What measures would be taken to handle nuclear waste if new plants are set up? Put it in a rocket and send it to space. Also for fun we could aim to the Sun.
starcraft4ever wrote:
Put it in a rocket and send it to space. Also for fun we could aim to the Sun.
:-D
Let us not listen to those who think we ought to be angry with our enemies, and who believe this to be great and manly. Nothing is so praiseworthy, nothing so clearly shows a great and noble soul, as clemency and readiness to forgive. - Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
starcraft4ever wrote:
Put it in a rocket and send it to space. Also for fun we could aim to the Sun.
:-D
Let us not listen to those who think we ought to be angry with our enemies, and who believe this to be great and manly. Nothing is so praiseworthy, nothing so clearly shows a great and noble soul, as clemency and readiness to forgive. - Marcus Tullius Cicero
I'm not kidding to send it to space, nuclear waste releases weak nuclear force (radioactivity), in space the amount of it is huge, drop our waste on space is like release a drop or water in a sea 1 billion (randomly small number) times bigger than out earth. I think only two reason why it is not been done in that way. 1) If the rocket fail and explodes before cross the atmosphere there is a risk to create a not so nice cloud of radioactivity. 2) Is cheaper paying to a corrupt government country to bury the waste under their land.
-
I'm not kidding to send it to space, nuclear waste releases weak nuclear force (radioactivity), in space the amount of it is huge, drop our waste on space is like release a drop or water in a sea 1 billion (randomly small number) times bigger than out earth. I think only two reason why it is not been done in that way. 1) If the rocket fail and explodes before cross the atmosphere there is a risk to create a not so nice cloud of radioactivity. 2) Is cheaper paying to a corrupt government country to bury the waste under their land.
I was grinning because you said we could aim the sun with nuclear waste for fun.
Absence is to love what wind is to fire; it extinguishes the small, it enkindles the great - Comte Debussy-Rabutin
-
I was grinning because you said we could aim the sun with nuclear waste for fun.
Absence is to love what wind is to fire; it extinguishes the small, it enkindles the great - Comte Debussy-Rabutin
Also instead send it to the sun, we could create a spacecraft like Voyager and send it to deep space and instead a gold-plated copper disk we can put a metal plate with a message, so when aliens decode the message it will read. “DON'T OPEN THE CONTAINER, if you can read this message means you have been exposed to a lethal dose of radioactivity and you are screw” ;P
-
Also instead send it to the sun, we could create a spacecraft like Voyager and send it to deep space and instead a gold-plated copper disk we can put a metal plate with a message, so when aliens decode the message it will read. “DON'T OPEN THE CONTAINER, if you can read this message means you have been exposed to a lethal dose of radioactivity and you are screw” ;P
starcraft4ever wrote:
“DON'T OPEN THE CONTAINER, if you can read this message means you have been exposed to a lethal dose of radioactivity and you are screw”
And may be we can append the following too. - Greetings from Earth (The third one from the sun).
All pain is either severe or slight, if slight, it is easily endured; if severe, it will without doubt be brief. - Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
Captain See Sharp wrote:
I just did some reading about nuclear power and reprocessing and I am impressed. It is definitely a sure fire way to extinguish our need for foreign oil
This is the problem with you. You just do *some* reading and you get impressed. How do you think you can cut down on oil imports with nuclear energy? Do you want vehicles to run on nuclear power? I can't imagine what happens on a collision. :omg:
Captain See Sharp wrote:
and will make the global warming a laughing matter.
WTF has global warming to do with this?
Captain See Sharp wrote:
We can then easily produce hydrogen for vehicles without producing CO2.
Can you be a little more clear?
Captain See Sharp wrote:
We must go forward with nuclear power.
In what regards, actually? Is America not using nuclear power at all?
Absence is to love what wind is to fire; it extinguishes the small, it enkindles the great - Comte Debussy-Rabutin
Who has voted a two :confused: Oh come on, it has to be 1 or 5.
He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot
-
I'm not kidding to send it to space, nuclear waste releases weak nuclear force (radioactivity), in space the amount of it is huge, drop our waste on space is like release a drop or water in a sea 1 billion (randomly small number) times bigger than out earth. I think only two reason why it is not been done in that way. 1) If the rocket fail and explodes before cross the atmosphere there is a risk to create a not so nice cloud of radioactivity. 2) Is cheaper paying to a corrupt government country to bury the waste under their land.
starcraft4ever wrote:
think only two reason why it is not been done in that way. 1) If the rocket fail and explodes before cross the atmosphere there is a risk to create a not so nice cloud of radioactivity.
Exactly. With the record of the space shuttle, it is too much of a risk. Actually, it is not just the space shuttle. Rockets have malfunctioned lots of times (failed satellite launches and other problems).
John Carson
-
Tim Craig wrote:
The premise is they'll run on hydrogen produced by electrolysing water using nuclear generated electricity.
What about the existing 99.999999% of vehicles that run on gasoline/petrol/diesel/gas? Ban? Or can they be transformed to adopt to the new technology? What measures would be taken to handle nuclear waste if new plants are set up?
Love is like pi - natural, irrational and very important - Lisa Hoffman
brahmma wrote:
What about the existing 99.999999% of vehicles that run on gasoline/petrol/diesel/gas?
The conversion of the transportation sector to hydrogen isn't going to happen overnight. Old vehicles will be replaced with new hydrogen powered vehicles gradually, assuming that hydrogen is they way things go. Biodiesel is looking up as a possibly easier transition.
brahmma wrote:
What measures would be taken to handle nuclear waste if new plants are set up?
The new nuclear plants should be breeders of the design currently under development that produce less waste and much less of the extremely long half life waste.
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance idiots like CSS.
-
starcraft4ever wrote:
“DON'T OPEN THE CONTAINER, if you can read this message means you have been exposed to a lethal dose of radioactivity and you are screw”
And may be we can append the following too. - Greetings from Earth (The third one from the sun).
All pain is either severe or slight, if slight, it is easily endured; if severe, it will without doubt be brief. - Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Greetings from Earth (The third one from the sun). That was a good one :laugh:
-
starcraft4ever wrote:
think only two reason why it is not been done in that way. 1) If the rocket fail and explodes before cross the atmosphere there is a risk to create a not so nice cloud of radioactivity.
Exactly. With the record of the space shuttle, it is too much of a risk. Actually, it is not just the space shuttle. Rockets have malfunctioned lots of times (failed satellite launches and other problems).
John Carson
May be we will be able to do it when we finish the first space elevator made with nanotubes. (Don't confuse with YouTube :laugh:)
-
brahmma wrote:
What about the existing 99.999999% of vehicles that run on gasoline/petrol/diesel/gas?
The conversion of the transportation sector to hydrogen isn't going to happen overnight. Old vehicles will be replaced with new hydrogen powered vehicles gradually, assuming that hydrogen is they way things go. Biodiesel is looking up as a possibly easier transition.
brahmma wrote:
What measures would be taken to handle nuclear waste if new plants are set up?
The new nuclear plants should be breeders of the design currently under development that produce less waste and much less of the extremely long half life waste.
The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance idiots like CSS.
> Biodiesel is looking up as a possibly easier transition. IMHO I think the oil business is too powerful to let biodiesel take the market, I think the only thing will happen is that governments will enforce to gas stations to deliver a minimum of B20, doing that the oil business has another 50 years to make money because B20 will still be cheaper than B50 so real biodiesel like B100 will go to sleep for a long time, hydrogen is way too dangerous to store in bigger tanks in cars “for now”. Electrolysis on the fly will never make it, Solar power now way… So the only method I personally think will make a long run is electric cars, the evolution of the batteries in the last years is amazing. Of course there you have another problem. Lead batteries are too heavy. Nickel will give cancer Lithium-Polymer is a bomb ready to explode, Lithium-Ion is the only thing can make it, although still are dangerous. How to charge the batteries will be via fast charger stations and auxiliary may be hydrogen will be used with a small engine, in this case the hydrogen tank will be a lot smaller. I don’t know… if I have to bet, I bet for electric cars, also the amount of torque in a electric car is incredible, so if we keep advancing with new batteries inclusive race cars will be electric in a near future.
-
I just did some reading about nuclear power and reprocessing and I am impressed. It is definitely a sure fire way to extinguish our need for foreign oil and will make the global warming a laughing matter. The really neat thing about nuclear is that once the fuel is depleted it can be reprocessed and used again (only 5% of the fuel is lost during the reprocessing). So with 95% of the waste being reused as fuel again we have very efficient power. We can then easily produce hydrogen for vehicles without producing CO2. If the environmentalists would just let up and and stop lobbying then we could fight "global warming" and high energy prices without destroying the economy and taking Americas freedom. We must go forward with nuclear power.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
I agree, but water vapour is also a greenhouse gas according to some articles that I read. So, a fuel cell may not be too much help because it just replaces carbon dioxide emissions with water vapour emissions. Some other technology that can use electricity without such emissions may have to be developed.
-
I just did some reading about nuclear power and reprocessing and I am impressed. It is definitely a sure fire way to extinguish our need for foreign oil and will make the global warming a laughing matter. The really neat thing about nuclear is that once the fuel is depleted it can be reprocessed and used again (only 5% of the fuel is lost during the reprocessing). So with 95% of the waste being reused as fuel again we have very efficient power. We can then easily produce hydrogen for vehicles without producing CO2. If the environmentalists would just let up and and stop lobbying then we could fight "global warming" and high energy prices without destroying the economy and taking Americas freedom. We must go forward with nuclear power.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
Processing, reprocessing, waste extraction and storage, disposing of plants when their life is over... Sadly it's not that efficient.