Nuclear energy is the way of the future.
-
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, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
When this kind of thing has to be explained, it wrings the hilarity right out of it...
And, your point is? Maybe CSS didn't like the idea of his topic being hijacked right from the get-go will "satire" and "humor." Maybe CSS thought that the most humorous response to the "satire" would be to treat it as though he hadn't understood the "humor" of the "satire." Just a speculation, you understand.
-
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.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
The statistics don't bear out. If all fossil fuel use were replaced by nuclear power, we would exhaust the worlds uranium supply in 50 years (this probably does not suppose significant recycling). The US does not presently permit fuel reprocessing, due to the risks of loss of plutonium to possible terrorist parties, and due to a rather bad experience with the abandoned West Valley, N.Y. preprocessing facility. The major effort in reprocessing is not so much recapture of remaining viable fuel as it is removal of reaction products, particularly reaction "poisons". This removal results in the production of large amounts of highly radioactive liquid waste, which is particularly difficult to dispose of. Nuclear power may well be part of the solution, but it is mostly a stopgap, due to the serious issues that are an impediment to the deployment of large scale reprocessing, including both security and waste disposal.
-
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:
nuclear waste releases weak nuclear force
No, not quite.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
When this kind of thing has to be explained, it wrings the hilarity right out of it...
And, your point is? Maybe CSS didn't like the idea of his topic being hijacked right from the get-go will "satire" and "humor." Maybe CSS thought that the most humorous response to the "satire" would be to treat it as though he hadn't understood the "humor" of the "satire." Just a speculation, you understand.
Ilíon wrote:
Maybe CSS didn't like the idea of his topic being hijacked
This is the internet. All threads can be hijacked.
"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 -
Ilíon wrote:
Maybe CSS didn't like the idea of his topic being hijacked
This is the internet. All threads can be hijacked.
"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, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
This is the internet. All threads can be hijacked.
I didn't say:
Ilíon wrote:
Maybe CSS didn't like the idea of his topic being hijacked
(with in some mysterious way the implication that threads cannot be hijacked) I said:
Ilíon wrote:
Maybe CSS didn't like the idea of his topic being hijacked right from the get-go will "satire" and "humor." Maybe CSS thought that the most humorous response to the "satire" would be to treat it as though he hadn't understood the "humor" of the "satire." Just a speculation, you understand.
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
When this kind of thing has to be explained, it wrings the hilarity right out of it...
And, your point is? Maybe CSS didn't like the idea of his topic being hijacked right from the get-go will "satire" and "humor." Maybe CSS thought that the most humorous response to the "satire" would be to treat it as though he hadn't understood the "humor" of the "satire." Just a speculation, you understand.
Why don't you and CSS get a room. Who cares, you don't own the thread, its public. If you post drivel expect some hilarity to result.
This statement was never false.
-
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 measures would be taken to handle nuclear waste if new plants are set up?
As I stated in the original message 95% of the waste would be reprocessed into usable fuel again. The 5% waste would be locked up in central locations.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
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? Ban?
Just as vehicles that used leaded fuels were phased out so would gasoline/petrol/diesel/gas cars. Kind of obvious I would have thought.
Steve
-
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.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
You don't get many 5's from me but you get one for this. It’s not that I’m pro-nuclear as such; it’s just that I’m tired of hippies writing off nuclear energy off hand when it's fossil fuels that have screwed the planet. I’m all for other forms of energy such a solar and wind energy but the fact remains that these technologies, while useful, have limited application.
Steve
-
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"
What about cold fusion? ;)
Steve
