By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 said:

Actually Nuclear power is safe.... a lot safer then people think.

The effects of Nuclear radiation have been greatly exaggerated.

You'd be surprised what the research on Chernobyl and Japan show.


Chernoybl for example was expected to kill hundreds of thousands.

Actual deatholl so far.... 54.

Total expected.... 4,000... and even that could be overestimated.

Are you willing to store spent fuel in your backyard?



Switch: SW-5066-1525-5130

XBL: GratuitousFREEK

Around the Network
highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:

Actually Nuclear power is safe.... a lot safer then people think.

The effects of Nuclear radiation have been greatly exaggerated.

You'd be surprised what the research on Chernobyl and Japan show.


Chernoybl for example was expected to kill hundreds of thousands.

Actual deatholl so far.... 54.

Total expected.... 4,000... and even that could be overestimated.

Nuclear power is the best source of energy in my opinion. Especially if we eventually manage to support a fusion infrastructure as opposed to fission. That didn't come out right did it? Well you know what I mean.

Interestingly enough you can now get a permit to visit Pripyat (the town near Chernobyl that was evacuated), I would love to go and see a city frozen in time like that, it would be really interesting.

Wind and Solar are cheaper and safer.



Switch: SW-5066-1525-5130

XBL: GratuitousFREEK

Kasz216 said:
SciFiBoy said:
Kasz216 said:
SciFiBoy said:
Kasz216 said:
Actually Nuclear power is safe.... a lot safer then people think.

The effects of Nuclear radiation have been greatly exaggerated.

You'd be surprised what the research on Chernobyl and Japan show.

okay, im listening, please elaborate on this?

 

 

Chernoybl for example was expected to kill hundreds of thousands.

Actual deatholl so far.... 54.

Total expected.... 4,000... and even that could be overestimated.... since the people in the area didn't exactly have the best medical treatment and high cancer detection rates... and it's assuming every case of cancer is caused by the radiation.  

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article685386.ece

 

In general the Nuclear attacks in Japan don't really show significant effects on the granchildren and in most cases the children of those effected. 

 

Plus, this is with the old reactors... new reactors are so ridiculiously safe... they have so many failsafes it's ridiculious.

 

If you look what leads to nuclear breakdowns... it takes like 6 or 7 catastrophic mistakes to blow something up.

oh I see, well, if that is true then it might be worth looking into then, the next question would be viability in the UK, do you have any stuff on that?

To my knowledge they're viable everywhere.  That's what makes them so valuable to "clean" technology, unlike Solar, Water or Wind plants you can pretty much put one down anywhere you have the space.

That's why people say Nucelear power is the only viable green energy source we have currently.

 

It takes AT LEAST FIFTEEN YEARS to recoup the cost of building a nuclear power plant.

Germany is at the forefront of solar power.  (surprising given their climate)

“Thirty years from now, is ExxonMobil going to be in the solar energy business?”

“I think that they’ll either be in the solar energy business or they won’t be in business"



Switch: SW-5066-1525-5130

XBL: GratuitousFREEK

NinjaguyDan said:
highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:

Actually Nuclear power is safe.... a lot safer then people think.

The effects of Nuclear radiation have been greatly exaggerated.

You'd be surprised what the research on Chernobyl and Japan show.


Chernoybl for example was expected to kill hundreds of thousands.

Actual deatholl so far.... 54.

Total expected.... 4,000... and even that could be overestimated.

Nuclear power is the best source of energy in my opinion. Especially if we eventually manage to support a fusion infrastructure as opposed to fission. That didn't come out right did it? Well you know what I mean.

Interestingly enough you can now get a permit to visit Pripyat (the town near Chernobyl that was evacuated), I would love to go and see a city frozen in time like that, it would be really interesting.

Wind and Solar are cheaper and safer.

A) No they are not cheaper

B) Wind and Solar are great... when the wind is blowing, the sun is shining... and there is room.  Where praytell is England going to find the massive room needed for solar and wind farms in England?  What are they going to do when the wind isn't blowing and it's overcast?

C) Wind and Solar are nowhere near the level of efficency to work huge power grids by themselves, and even if they did they need backup systems... and they won't be able to work everywhere because you need very specific conditions to drop down windfarms or solar farms.  Using Solar is going to end up burning more fossil fuels then Nuclear will in the long run.

You know... for the rest of the quote you cherry picked.

it won’t be all of their business by far. We’ll still be using oil, we’ll still be using gas, we’ll still be using coal. But we’ll be using those at far diminished levels than we are today.”

By far?  So... what... 50% fossil fuels... at least?



Kasz216 said:
NinjaguyDan said:
highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:

Actually Nuclear power is safe.... a lot safer then people think.

The effects of Nuclear radiation have been greatly exaggerated.

You'd be surprised what the research on Chernobyl and Japan show.


Chernoybl for example was expected to kill hundreds of thousands.

Actual deatholl so far.... 54.

Total expected.... 4,000... and even that could be overestimated.

Nuclear power is the best source of energy in my opinion. Especially if we eventually manage to support a fusion infrastructure as opposed to fission. That didn't come out right did it? Well you know what I mean.

Interestingly enough you can now get a permit to visit Pripyat (the town near Chernobyl that was evacuated), I would love to go and see a city frozen in time like that, it would be really interesting.

Wind and Solar are cheaper and safer.

A) No they are not cheaper

B) Wind and Solar are great... when the wind is blowing, the sun is shining... and there is room.  Where praytell is England going to find the massive room needed for solar and wind farms in England?  What are they going to do when the wind isn't blowing and it's overcast?

C) Wind and Solar are nowhere near the level of efficency to work huge power grids by themselves, and even if they did they need backup systems... and they won't be able to work everywhere because you need very specific conditions to drop down windfarms or solar farms.  Using Solar is going to end up burning more fossil fuels then Nuclear will in the long run.

You know... for the rest of the quote you cherry picked.

it won’t be all of their business by far. We’ll still be using oil, we’ll still be using gas, we’ll still be using coal. But we’ll be using those at far diminished levels than we are today.”

By far?  So... what... 50% fossil fuels... at least?

Ok, are you willing to store spent nuclear fuel under your bed?  In your car boot? in your backyard?

Didn't think so.

When someone comes up with a reasonable way to dispose of nuclear waste AND makes building the plants cost effective, THEN I will accept it as a viable alternative.



Switch: SW-5066-1525-5130

XBL: GratuitousFREEK

Around the Network
NinjaguyDan said:
Kasz216 said:
NinjaguyDan said:
highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:

Actually Nuclear power is safe.... a lot safer then people think.

The effects of Nuclear radiation have been greatly exaggerated.

You'd be surprised what the research on Chernobyl and Japan show.


Chernoybl for example was expected to kill hundreds of thousands.

Actual deatholl so far.... 54.

Total expected.... 4,000... and even that could be overestimated.

Nuclear power is the best source of energy in my opinion. Especially if we eventually manage to support a fusion infrastructure as opposed to fission. That didn't come out right did it? Well you know what I mean.

Interestingly enough you can now get a permit to visit Pripyat (the town near Chernobyl that was evacuated), I would love to go and see a city frozen in time like that, it would be really interesting.

Wind and Solar are cheaper and safer.

A) No they are not cheaper

B) Wind and Solar are great... when the wind is blowing, the sun is shining... and there is room.  Where praytell is England going to find the massive room needed for solar and wind farms in England?  What are they going to do when the wind isn't blowing and it's overcast?

C) Wind and Solar are nowhere near the level of efficency to work huge power grids by themselves, and even if they did they need backup systems... and they won't be able to work everywhere because you need very specific conditions to drop down windfarms or solar farms.  Using Solar is going to end up burning more fossil fuels then Nuclear will in the long run.

You know... for the rest of the quote you cherry picked.

it won’t be all of their business by far. We’ll still be using oil, we’ll still be using gas, we’ll still be using coal. But we’ll be using those at far diminished levels than we are today.”

By far?  So... what... 50% fossil fuels... at least?

Ok, are you willing to store spent nuclear fuel under your bed?  In your car boot? in your backyard?

Didn't think so.

When someone comes up with a reasonable way to dispose of nuclear waste AND makes building the plants cost effective, THEN I will accept it as a viable alternative.

We're already drilling and putting the waste under ground. No problems at all.

And of course nuclear energy is cost effective, or else it wouldn't be widespread all over the world since 50 years back, with new plants being built all over the place.



NinjaguyDan said:
Kasz216 said:
NinjaguyDan said:
highwaystar101 said:

Nuclear power is the best source of energy in my opinion. Especially if we eventually manage to support a fusion infrastructure as opposed to fission. That didn't come out right did it? Well you know what I mean.

Interestingly enough you can now get a permit to visit Pripyat (the town near Chernobyl that was evacuated), I would love to go and see a city frozen in time like that, it would be really interesting.

Wind and Solar are cheaper and safer.

A) No they are not cheaper

B) Wind and Solar are great... when the wind is blowing, the sun is shining... and there is room.  Where praytell is England going to find the massive room needed for solar and wind farms in England?  What are they going to do when the wind isn't blowing and it's overcast?

C) Wind and Solar are nowhere near the level of efficency to work huge power grids by themselves, and even if they did they need backup systems... and they won't be able to work everywhere because you need very specific conditions to drop down windfarms or solar farms.  Using Solar is going to end up burning more fossil fuels then Nuclear will in the long run.

You know... for the rest of the quote you cherry picked.

it won’t be all of their business by far. We’ll still be using oil, we’ll still be using gas, we’ll still be using coal. But we’ll be using those at far diminished levels than we are today.”

By far?  So... what... 50% fossil fuels... at least?

Ok, are you willing to store spent nuclear fuel under your bed?  In your car boot? in your backyard?

Didn't think so.

When someone comes up with a reasonable way to dispose of nuclear waste AND makes building the plants cost effective, THEN I will accept it as a viable alternative.

I'm sorry, but have you been brain washed by some anti-nuclear committee or something? 

How about power from nuclear fusion, so you think that's a bad idea too?



NinjaguyDan said:
Kasz216 said:
NinjaguyDan said:
highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:

Actually Nuclear power is safe.... a lot safer then people think.

The effects of Nuclear radiation have been greatly exaggerated.

You'd be surprised what the research on Chernobyl and Japan show.


Chernoybl for example was expected to kill hundreds of thousands.

Actual deatholl so far.... 54.

Total expected.... 4,000... and even that could be overestimated.

Nuclear power is the best source of energy in my opinion. Especially if we eventually manage to support a fusion infrastructure as opposed to fission. That didn't come out right did it? Well you know what I mean.

Interestingly enough you can now get a permit to visit Pripyat (the town near Chernobyl that was evacuated), I would love to go and see a city frozen in time like that, it would be really interesting.

Wind and Solar are cheaper and safer.

A) No they are not cheaper

B) Wind and Solar are great... when the wind is blowing, the sun is shining... and there is room.  Where praytell is England going to find the massive room needed for solar and wind farms in England?  What are they going to do when the wind isn't blowing and it's overcast?

C) Wind and Solar are nowhere near the level of efficency to work huge power grids by themselves, and even if they did they need backup systems... and they won't be able to work everywhere because you need very specific conditions to drop down windfarms or solar farms.  Using Solar is going to end up burning more fossil fuels then Nuclear will in the long run.

You know... for the rest of the quote you cherry picked.

it won’t be all of their business by far. We’ll still be using oil, we’ll still be using gas, we’ll still be using coal. But we’ll be using those at far diminished levels than we are today.”

By far?  So... what... 50% fossil fuels... at least?

Ok, are you willing to store spent nuclear fuel under your bed?  In your car boot? in your backyard?

Didn't think so.

When someone comes up with a reasonable way to dispose of nuclear waste AND makes building the plants cost effective, THEN I will accept it as a viable alternative.

Are you willing to have a prison for muderers built in your backyard?

No?

Then clearly prisons and laws that put people in jail aren't good by your logic.

Sorry I want to go with the only reasonable clean energy source out there.

Wind only works for countries like the US with lots of open land... and even then only some states.

And Solar really only works for individual families who can put solar panels on their house for their own use while they draw off a "Baseload" supply.

Solar really would only work well in conjuction with Nuclear Power, Natural Gas Power or Oil Power.  With the baseload actually providing more of the power.

 



I'm late to the party.

@Kasz: solar works brilliantly in large sites, just look at Nevada Solar One, and the desert Southwest provides enough flat, undeveloped, and sunny lands to provide electricity to power the whole USA - of course, you'd have issues with getting the power around the states, but the ability to generate it is there.



SamuelRSmith said:
I'm late to the party.

@Kasz: solar works brilliantly in large sites, just look at Nevada Solar One, and the desert Southwest provides enough flat, undeveloped, and sunny lands to provide electricity to power the whole USA - of course, you'd have issues with getting the power around the states, but the ability to generate it is there.

A) Where in the UK exists anything like Nevada?

A huge wideopen space where there is basically no cloud coverage.

Nevada is to solar power what Victoria falls is to hydro electric power.

 

B) Solar storage isn't near advanced enough to "Power the entire US."   In fact Solar Nevada 1 isn't even a base energy source.

Why?  We don't have the technology to store solar energy for 16 hours.  Let alone if it'sone of those rare overcast days in Nevada. (Yes they happen here.)  Right now all that energy used to power the Las Vegas strip and other areas at night is made elsewhere.

Such a plant could produce enough energy to power the entire USA... but most of that power couldn't actually be used and would just die away.

Once it gets dark, or even just kinda cloudy... Solar 1 is useless.

There is a reason afterall Solar 1 is build right by the Hoover Dam.

C) This is why Solar works best in small sites.  It's not seen as a "MUST HAVE" source but instead a bonus source of cheap free energy for those who have it installed, and in the right countries like the US... you can actually "Sell" your excess energy.