Reply
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 07/02/2009
Offline
6986 posts
 

Re: Nuclear Power?

Sep 7, 2013

bob-maul wrote:

mcbuttz78 wrote:

I think solar wind is safer /solar energy is  safer than some  Nc plant.   When  Ncp  go  dwn evey thing  go down almost.


Solar energy is inefficient and also makes tons of waste per panel. Nuclear plants make little to no waste and it can be reused to make more energy. Then, the waste will eventually break down in a few hundred years. It is perfectly safe and few meltdowns have actually occurred. most of them being outdated technology.


right. let me  knw when  one  cost under 1oomill in stead  of  10k. solar  panel dont expire and are not wasteful , they can  be used for  150  years, before you hve to replace them  none  live that long thats 3 generations  of family.

Mcbuttz78

vp-psn legioniaree group.

Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the future

Message 41 of 50 (88 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 10/02/2008
Offline
14612 posts
 

Re: Nuclear Power?

Sep 7, 2013

mcbuttz78 wrote:

bob-maul wrote:

mcbuttz78 wrote:

I think solar wind is safer /solar energy is  safer than some  Nc plant.   When  Ncp  go  dwn evey thing  go down almost.


Solar energy is inefficient and also makes tons of waste per panel. Nuclear plants make little to no waste and it can be reused to make more energy. Then, the waste will eventually break down in a few hundred years. It is perfectly safe and few meltdowns have actually occurred. most of them being outdated technology.


right. let me  knw when  one  cost under 1oomill in stead  of  10k. solar  panel dont expire and are not wasteful , they can  be used for  150  years, before you hve to replace them  none  live that long thats 3 generations  of family.


Nuclear plants do not have to be made in the millions...

 

Solar panels have to be made in the hundreds of millions to be effective in the slightest. Nuclear plants only have to be made in the dozens and they do not cause near as much of waste. And you talk about the economic cost of the plants. When you run low on oil, good luck economy. Building these plants are an investment and ultimately make more energy than any solar plant or wind farm. And you want to talk about a waste of money? Wind power is terrible!

 

Tell me the downfalls of nuclear if the companies use the newest generation of them. They are safe, clean, and effective. Solar is somewhat clean, not really effective because they are too expensive for the average family, but they are safe. Wind is clean, but is incredibly ineffective. 

 

You have yet to come up with a problem with nuclear. The only problem brought up so far is by Ren. She said she would not want them in her city. Nuclear has the connotation of "Hiroshima-destroyer" when it really is not dangerous at all. The only problem is fears from the populace which proper education can subside.


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 42 of 50 (84 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Limit Breaker
Registered: 05/24/2009
Offline
18676 posts
 

Re: Nuclear Power?

[ Edited ]
Sep 7, 2013

bob-maul wrote:

mcbuttz78 wrote:

bob-maul wrote:

mcbuttz78 wrote:

I think solar wind is safer /solar energy is  safer than some  Nc plant.   When  Ncp  go  dwn evey thing  go down almost.


Solar energy is inefficient and also makes tons of waste per panel. Nuclear plants make little to no waste and it can be reused to make more energy. Then, the waste will eventually break down in a few hundred years. It is perfectly safe and few meltdowns have actually occurred. most of them being outdated technology.


right. let me  knw when  one  cost under 1oomill in stead  of  10k. solar  panel dont expire and are not wasteful , they can  be used for  150  years, before you hve to replace them  none  live that long thats 3 generations  of family.


Nuclear plants do not have to be made in the millions...

 

Solar panels have to be made in the hundreds of millions to be effective in the slightest. Nuclear plants only have to be made in the dozens and they do not cause near as much of waste. And you talk about the economic cost of the plants. When you run low on oil, good luck economy. Building these plants are an investment and ultimately make more energy than any solar plant or wind farm. And you want to talk about a waste of money? Wind power is terrible!

 

Tell me the downfalls of nuclear if the companies use the newest generation of them. They are safe, clean, and effective. Solar is somewhat clean, not really effective because they are too expensive for the average family, but they are safe. Wind is clean, but is incredibly ineffective. 

 

You have yet to come up with a problem with nuclear. The only problem brought up so far is by Ren. She said she would not want them in her city. Nuclear has the connotation of "Hiroshima-destroyer" when it really is not dangerous at all. The only problem is fears from the populace which proper education can subside.


Forget it, you're just going to talk in circles... we've both made the same points time and time again...they don't respond to them, they just say "what if"

 

I already made the analogy of cars, and that kind of technology... we moved forward from horse and buggy, and look how many deaths that caused. Nuclear reactor deaths will never even scratch the amount of deahts car wrecks cause... but I bet you guys like cars right?

RE-THINK SALAD


Message 43 of 50 (78 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 10/02/2008
Offline
14612 posts
 

Re: Nuclear Power?

Sep 7, 2013

Setzaroth wrote:

bob-maul wrote:

mcbuttz78 wrote:

bob-maul wrote:

mcbuttz78 wrote:

I think solar wind is safer /solar energy is  safer than some  Nc plant.   When  Ncp  go  dwn evey thing  go down almost.


Solar energy is inefficient and also makes tons of waste per panel. Nuclear plants make little to no waste and it can be reused to make more energy. Then, the waste will eventually break down in a few hundred years. It is perfectly safe and few meltdowns have actually occurred. most of them being outdated technology.


right. let me  knw when  one  cost under 1oomill in stead  of  10k. solar  panel dont expire and are not wasteful , they can  be used for  150  years, before you hve to replace them  none  live that long thats 3 generations  of family.


Nuclear plants do not have to be made in the millions...

 

Solar panels have to be made in the hundreds of millions to be effective in the slightest. Nuclear plants only have to be made in the dozens and they do not cause near as much of waste. And you talk about the economic cost of the plants. When you run low on oil, good luck economy. Building these plants are an investment and ultimately make more energy than any solar plant or wind farm. And you want to talk about a waste of money? Wind power is terrible!

 

Tell me the downfalls of nuclear if the companies use the newest generation of them. They are safe, clean, and effective. Solar is somewhat clean, not really effective because they are too expensive for the average family, but they are safe. Wind is clean, but is incredibly ineffective. 

 

You have yet to come up with a problem with nuclear. The only problem brought up so far is by Ren. She said she would not want them in her city. Nuclear has the connotation of "Hiroshima-destroyer" when it really is not dangerous at all. The only problem is fears from the populace which proper education can subside.


Forget it, you're just going to talk in circles... we've both made the same points time and time again...they don't respond to them, they just say "what if"

 

I already made the analogy of cars, and that kind of technology... we moved forward from horse and buggy, and look how many deaths that caused. Nuclear reactor deaths will never even scratch the amount of deahts car wrecks cause... but I bet you guys like cars right?


Or coal mine shafts falling to pieces, or oil explosions, etc. 

 

People just hear "nuclear" and think "death" and "three-armed babies"


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 44 of 50 (70 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 01/19/2004
Offline
36557 posts
 

Re: Nuclear Power?

Sep 7, 2013

cross12095 wrote:
Also there's a reason why it's in front of a river, nuclear power plants require huge amounts of water.

Once again, no.  No they don't.  A thorium-cycle nuclear plant is a molten salt reactor.  It uses very little water.  You can literally turn it off for the weekend and then turn it back on Monday.  Thorium-cycle plants CAN'T have a meltdown.  It's not possible if you tried.

 

Gen 1 and 2 plants do need lots of water, and they are prone to meltdowns.  Nobody is making them anymore.  Who needs them?  They're crap.  Right now they are building Gen 3+ plants in Georgia.  They are far smaller than the plant you mentioned, far more efficient, fewer moving parts, much safer.

 

The Gen 4 plants they're working on perfecting (mainly in China) will be the ones that actually consume the decades-old radiactive waste from the Gen 1 and 2 plants.  So not only don't they contaminate the environment, but they will actually reverse the damage caused by older models.  How can anyone be opposed to that?  Seriously?

a. NO CHANCE of a meltdown.

b. Uses radioactive waste as fuel.

c. Small footprint.

d. No emissions of any sort.

e. Produce power at night, and when the wind dies down.

 

This is the golden goose of power plants.  The only logical reason for someone to object to a Gen 4 nuclear reactor is if they just don't like electricity and want us all to go back to the Middle Ages and use carts and oxen.  Watch the movie Soylent Green and you'll get an idea of the future these people want for us.  "Just don't use any electricity!"

Message 45 of 50 (68 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 01/19/2004
Offline
36557 posts
 

Re: Nuclear Power?

Sep 7, 2013

cross12095 wrote:

Where solar/wind energy is concerned if something happens, nothing happens.


Have you actually seen the newest wind turbines?  They are like 450 feet tall.  Are you saying if one of those blades came loose at high RPM and flung itself toward the city, nothing at all would happen?

Message 46 of 50 (66 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 01/19/2004
Offline
36557 posts
 

Re: Nuclear Power?

Sep 7, 2013

bob-maul wrote:
Or coal mine shafts falling to pieces, or oil explosions, etc. 

 

People just hear "nuclear" and think "death" and "three-armed babies"


Also consider that coal really is "dirty".  There are traces of many harmful elements in coal, including uranium.  A typical coal plant dumps out maybe a few pounds of uranium dust into the air every year.  Not enough to hurt anyone, but it's measurable.

 

The Fukishima incident in Japan put much less urainum into the air and they evacuated.  They are over-reacting to the "dangers" of a nuclear reactor.  Fukishima was rated a 7 on the disaster scale, with a maximum possible score of 7.  That means it's the worst thing possible.  But nobody was injured.  Nobody was exposed to enough radiation to cut one day off their lifespan.  The workers who went in to fix the problem were standing in boiling hot water.  Some of them got 2nd degree burns but they healed within a few days.  None of them will get cancer from it or anything like that.

 

But if a coal mine collapses, a hundred guys are dead.

 

Oil tanker runs into the rocks, and oil goes everywhere.

 

Workers go up on a roof to install solar panels and one of them falls of to his death.  Roofing is one of the most dangerous jobs in the country.

 

There has been one and only one serious nuclear reactor failure.  That was Chernobyl.  Three Mile Island was contained.  Fukishima was over-rated.  Yes, Chernobyl was very bad, but it spurred innovation to prevent such a thing from happening again.

 

The way forward is to build lots of modern reactors and then begin decommissioning the older ones.

Message 47 of 50 (63 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Platinum
Registered: 12/21/2007
Online
55190 posts
 

Re: Nuclear Power?

Sep 9, 2013

bob-maul wrote:

I want to get your opinions on countries switching to nuclear power. I am personally fine with it. It produces a ton of power, it is clean, it is renewable, and it has been proven to work very well. 

 

The only concerns I ever hear are to do with the nuclear waste and the possibilty of a meltdown. 

 

Both have been taken on, though. The safety is not nearly as big of an issue as people think. Oil disasters and the coal industry cause a lot more deaths and harm. And those are not clean resources. The technology is also a lot better. There are tons of nuclear plants worldwide and only a few have caused any problems. The problematic ones also tended to be outdated to begin with. 

 

Also, a lot of the waste can be reused. We also have huge areas (which have been closing from going unused) that could store the remaining waste.

 

Thoughts? 


I like nuclear power.  I think its way better than burning fossil fuels and the electricity is WAY MORE AFFORDABLE for me as a consumer than solar/wind.  

Message 48 of 50 (50 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 05/08/2013
Offline
1474 posts
 

Re: Nuclear Power?

Sep 9, 2013

Setzaroth wrote:

Its great.....until it kills everyone within a 20 mile radius instantly, within 100 miles within a few months, and causes birth defects in other countries

 

#chernobyl


Basically causing the apocalypse and everybody turning into mutant zombies that we will have to rise to challenge and stop.

 photo 8404_8a96_zps4b0191c3.gif


Message 49 of 50 (50 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 05/08/2013
Offline
1474 posts
 

Re: Nuclear Power?

Sep 9, 2013

I think it depends. If we can figure out the bad parts of NCP and try to make them good, then I don't see why not.

 photo 8404_8a96_zps4b0191c3.gif


Message 50 of 50 (49 Views)
Reply
0 Likes