Energy Crisis: Nuclear vs Renewable Sources

elprincipe

Currently Offline

15,364

1110 posts since 10/02/07

Recent Badges:

Leaving Limbo 100 posts on the gamrConnect forums.
3 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 3 years.
Making Friends 10 friends on gamrConnect.
4 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 4 years.
Open For Business Earned 10 badges.
12 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 12 years.

Currently Playing:

Castlevania: Harmony of Dissonance (GBA)
Jeanne d'Arc (PSP)
NBA Hangtime (N64)

elprincipe on 01 January 2009

IllegalPaladin said:

Soleron said:
I'd like to point out that using the term "nuclear" like that refers only to nuclear fission. Nuclear fusion, generating power by combining light atoms, generates minimal radiation*, has a higher potential energy output than fission, has zero risk of "meltdown" (any failure would only affect the building itself), is cheap once set up, is clean and is renewable (uses hydrogen as fuel).

*The products aren't radioactive. The fuel is, but only weakly so and will obviously be used up in the process. The fuel only has a short half-life of 12 years, so there isn't a storage problem.

Just that to get fusion, we would have to get the gas at hot as a star. I don't believe we can sustain that kind of heat at the moment.

In experiments we have already created conditions hotter than the sun.

In Memoriam RVW Jr.

SSBB Friend Code = 5455-9050-8670 (PM me if you add so I can add you!)

Tetris Party Friend Code = 116129046416 (ditto)

akuma587

Currently Offline

10,879

8247 posts since 15/03/07

Recent Badges:

12 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 12 years.
Some Here, Some There Bank a Total of 5,000 VG$.
Hit And Run 15 comments posted on VGChartz news articles.
Genocide 5,000 posts on the gamrConnect forums.
Trust Me, It'll Have Legs 100 replies made to user's most popular thread.
So You Came Back For More, Huh? Logged in a second time.

akuma587 on 01 January 2009

elprincipe said:

IllegalPaladin said:

Soleron said:
I'd like to point out that using the term "nuclear" like that refers only to nuclear fission. Nuclear fusion, generating power by combining light atoms, generates minimal radiation*, has a higher potential energy output than fission, has zero risk of "meltdown" (any failure would only affect the building itself), is cheap once set up, is clean and is renewable (uses hydrogen as fuel).

*The products aren't radioactive. The fuel is, but only weakly so and will obviously be used up in the process. The fuel only has a short half-life of 12 years, so there isn't a storage problem.

Just that to get fusion, we would have to get the gas at hot as a star. I don't believe we can sustain that kind of heat at the moment.

In experiments we have already created conditions hotter than the sun.

That's meaningless if you can't sustain it. And it takes more heat/energy than the temperature of the sun (you aren't very clear about whether you are talking about surface or core temperature) to start a fusion reaction. The initial energy input has to be extremely high to get it started.

And even if you can create a fusion reaction, it doesn't mean you will be able to control it.

We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Snake612

Currently Offline

45,171

3480 posts since 07/05/08

Recent Badges:

Hit And Run 15 comments posted on VGChartz news articles.
Mr. Punctual 10 game release dates added to the VGChartz database.
13 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 13 years.
Open For Business Earned 10 badges.
Trust Me, It'll Have Legs 100 replies made to user's most popular thread.
A Badge Within A Badge Earned 20 badges.

Snake612 on 01 January 2009

I think we should go with renewable sources. It is a better way to save energy and keep that energy clean. However, I agree with PS360FortheWin, because it really does depend on the environment. I think using nuclear power plants are not only wrong but dangerous. Those power plants can sometimes be used for the worng reasons. I think this country should try to use more solar energy but at the end of the day it depends on the type of environment we live in.

TO GOD BE THE GLORY