Nuclear energy is the way of the future.
-
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.
-
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.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
Fusion is, without a doubt. Fission is an intermediate (and not a particularly satisfactory one given its waste products) solution at best, and a potential millstone at worst. The only reason it is at all attractive is that world governments have sat on their hands and ignored the development of future energy sources until very recently - with the predictabvle results of reliance on overseas suppliers (particularly relevant in the UK) and susceptibility to shortage and price flunctuations. Global warming just adds to the urgency. Using fission to sidestep the problem is a short term solution to a long term problem. We should be able to do better, really.
Anna :rose: Linting the day away :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "If mushy peas are the food of the devil, the stotty cake is the frisbee of God"
-
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
-
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.
-
Thomas George wrote:
water vapour is also a greenhouse gas according to some articles that I read
Only some? Water vapour accounts for about 90% of greenhouse effect.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
I am not an expert on the subject. Since fuel cells was being suggested as an alternative, I pointed it out. If water vapour is worse than carbon dioxide, why is so much effort being expended on developing that technology under the guise of being environment-friendly? I think there may even be corporate tax breaks for research on the subject. Thomas
-
> 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.
starcraft4ever wrote:
> 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…
We might not have the agricultural capacity to go much beyond B20. I haven't seen limiting numbers for biodiesel, but converting 100% of the US corn crop into ethanol would only get us to E20 nationwide. As it is, the smaller amounts we're using as a replacement for MTBE have already doubled the price of cornmeal south of the border. Since corn's one of the staples Mexicans subsist on when they can't afford anything better this is not going to help our illegal immigration problems.
-- Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
-
I am not an expert on the subject. Since fuel cells was being suggested as an alternative, I pointed it out. If water vapour is worse than carbon dioxide, why is so much effort being expended on developing that technology under the guise of being environment-friendly? I think there may even be corporate tax breaks for research on the subject. Thomas
-
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.
Thomas George wrote:
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.
OTOH water vapor quickly removes itself from the atmosphere instead of continuing to build up, so any potential effects should reach a new equilibrium point.
-- Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
"Nuc-u-lar". It's pronounced "nuc-u-lar".
Just to prove how much you know about the subject, you cant even spell it.[^]
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
Can you spell "humor" or "satire"? That's how Bush says it, and he's constantly mocked because of it. When this kind of thing has to be explained, it wrings the hilarity right out of it...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
