ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Rants and Debate => Topic started by: HighLatency on September 21, 2012, 10:05:25 pm
-
Yea or nay?
I see no problem with it (Yes there have been numerous malfunctions in the past) but I truly believe with more caution it would be feasible and we can finally get rid of some of those nasty coal plants.
-
Yea.
There's only so much longer that coal will support us. Maybe. We need to hop onto renewable energy right away.
Our technology as a race is advancing rapidly. Solutions to radioactive waste may not be too far away.
Population is also increasing. We need energy.
Nuclear power seems to work fine in many places as well.
(Was wondering, we don't have rockets on nuclear power, do we? All chemical-based?)
-
Australia has like 237 years of coal left, going the way we are going, so in terms of actually having to get off coal, I don't think that'll happen any time soon.
The larger issue is that coal is very bad for the environment, due to the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, whereas nuclear energy is clean.
I honestly think that the way forward would be fast reactors (Plutonium) rather than the current Uranium reactors, but obviously there's an issue of it being used for nuclear weapons...etc.
-
Preferable to coal but I see it as 'old' technology which takes ages to set up and would prefer to see investment in renewable energy. Plus, I've watched too many episodes of The Simpsons to feel perfectly comfortable with nuclear :P
-
Yay for Nuclear Energy; we could also get the advantage of having nuclear weapon capabilities to deter military invasions in the future
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Yay for Nuclear Energy; we could also get the advantage of having nuclear weapon capabilities to deter military invasions in the future
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
wooooohooooooo
-
Preferable to coal but I see it as 'old' technology which takes ages to set up and would prefer to see investment in renewable energy. Plus, I've watched too many episodes of The Simpsons to feel perfectly comfortable with nuclear :P
The nuclear power plant in Simpsons (lol):
-Starts raining acid rain at a nuclear power plant- and the thick black smoke that usually comes from the cooling towers. Lolwut. I smell anti-nuclear bs.
-
Yay for Nuclear Energy; we could also get the advantage of having nuclear weapon capabilities to deter military invasions in the future
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
That's... not... how it works.
-
Yay for Nuclear Energy; we could also get the advantage of having nuclear weapon capabilities to deter military invasions in the future
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
That's... not... how it works.
Which part doesn't work?
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
-
I'm going for nay.
Nuclear itself isn't renewable though, we will run out of uranium eventually as well.
The waste isn't easy to get rid of either, you just basically stick it somewhere. This creates its own headaches.
People say it's a good intermediate measure but we already have established technology like solar and wind available. It's not as good as it will be in the future but neither is anything. It's sort of like buying a new car/computer/tv. There'll always be next years model but you're going to have to buy it at some point and deal with that.
All the money spent on nuclear can be spent on the real energy sources of the future.
-
Yay for Nuclear Energy; we could also get the advantage of having nuclear weapon capabilities to deter military invasions in the future
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
That's... not... how it works.
Which part doesn't work?
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Nuclear Bomb = explosive, Nuclear Reactor = sustained energy output (Yay year 11 physics didnt go to waste...)
And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a nuclear bomb relatively easy to make if you had the required amount of enriched uranium? So yeah we probably have the technology for nuclear deterrents but since our country is full of hippys and our army is almost non-existent there has been little to no desire to acquire nuclear weapons. And plus people think of Australia like Americans think of Canada, "What the hell can they possibly do???"
-
Since I've been reading theories and methods of how Nuclear Power can power our space explorations. I believe we should allow Nuclear Power, mainly because I read this awesome as article on how Nuclear Reactors could create enough energy for Rockets and Spaceships to be in space for hundreds of years.
-
You're right. But if it was internationally implemented there is always a chance that a natural disaster can cause trouble.
Remember Fukishima?
-
You're right. But if it was internationally implemented there is always a chance that a natural disaster can cause trouble.
Remember Fukishima?
Not every Nuclear Power Station is going to built on a Fault-line. Just saying.
-
You're right. But if it was internationally implemented there is always a chance that a natural disaster can cause trouble.
Remember Fukishima?
And what that disaster also showed us was how deceitful governments can be in the event of problems and faults, to the detriment of the population.
-
You're right. But if it was internationally implemented there is always a chance that a natural disaster can cause trouble.
Remember Fukishima?
Not every Nuclear Power Station is going to built on a Fault-line. Just saying.
Yes. However nature is unpredictable. You never know when a flood, tsunami, hurricane, volcanic eruption, storm, etc. can happen so the risk is always there.
-
Since I've been reading theories and methods of how Nuclear Power can power our space explorations. I believe we should allow Nuclear Power, mainly because I read this awesome as article on how Nuclear Reactors could create enough energy for Rockets and Spaceships to be in space for hundreds of years.
Do you speak of Project Orion? That was pretty cool. We watched a documentary on it for Astronomy.
They'll need to solve the problem of it spewing out radiation as it exits Earth before such a power-source will work.
There were some projects seeking to fly rockets based on lasers and microwaves, forgotten all the details, that would be pro. Some of the test-models looked promising.
-
You're right. But if it was internationally implemented there is always a chance that a natural disaster can cause trouble.
Remember Fukishima?
Not every Nuclear Power Station is going to built on a Fault-line. Just saying.
Yes. However nature is unpredictable. You never know when a flood, tsunami, hurricane, volcanic eruption, storm, etc. can happen so the risk is always there.
They are built to withstand things like that...
Floods can be "diverted" build a nuclear power plant on high ground.
Tsunami in Australia are unlikely and we can build power plants further inland
Hurricanes only occur in the northern hemisphere we only have to worry about cyclones and those only occur in the summer and they're just glorified storms. The walls of a nuclear power plant are made to withstand direct impact from things larger than jets I'm sure it could withstand a strong breeze from a cyclone.
Volcanic eruptions are ever so slightly worse than nuclear power plants going critical.
We don't just build this shit out of the same flimsy materials we build houses out of they're DESIGNED to withstand the things you listed above.
Fukushima is one disaster and was the result of dishonesty, lack of responsibility and just general disregard for proper safety and building regulations.
There will always be a risk when dealing with nuclear energy but that risk is mostly human error.
-
^ In that case i have no problem with it. I actually welcome the idea of a long lasting energy source.
-
Since I've been reading theories and methods of how Nuclear Power can power our space explorations. I believe we should allow Nuclear Power, mainly because I read this awesome as article on how Nuclear Reactors could create enough energy for Rockets and Spaceships to be in space for hundreds of years.
Do you speak of Project Orion? That was pretty cool. We watched a documentary on it for Astronomy.
They'll need to solve the problem of it spewing out radiation as it exits Earth before such a power-source will work.
There were some projects seeking to fly rockets based on lasers and microwaves, forgotten all the details, that would be pro. Some of the test-models looked promising.
Probably, Year 9 Science was the best year for Science. We watched Documentaries and Films for almost the whole year. They all related to Science and were super cool way of learning.
There is that huge dilemma behind radiation. Do you reckon fortifying it with Materials that can help trap the radiation will help resolve it or would it make it worse.
-
Probably, Year 9 Science was the best year for Science. We watched Documentaries and Films for almost the whole year. They all related to Science and were super cool way of learning.
There is that huge dilemma behind radiation. Do you reckon fortifying it with Materials that can help trap the radiation will help resolve it or would it make it worse.
See.
How this propulsion system worked, it would ignite nuclear explosions underneath it to push it upwards. Pretty bold.
I don't think there is a way to contain the radiation. I mean, you are setting off the explosion outside the ship, underneath it, to propel it upwards. No, don't even mention setting off the bombs inside, and containing/filtering radiation :P
Designing the back-plate at the bottom of the rocket to withstand nuclear explosions is enough trouble, let alone the whole ship ^-^