Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: nuclear power | |
Author: Andrew(Canada) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 23:41:20 01/20/05 Thu I think it would be good that if the Federal Commonwealth came to exist, that it should advocate using nuclear power plants. I feel nuclear power has been given a bad reputation and many people don't realise how safe it is. When I was younger, I went with my Dad to visit a nuclear power plant and was suprised, even at that young age, about all the safeguards they had in place. I feel that it is good source of energy in that it does not produce air pollution and it produces a lot of energy. Even better, I would think it would be great if the FC started an initiative to make nuclear fusion power a reality(as opposed to the current fission plants). Nuclear fusion plants have no risk of meltdown(compared to the VERY small risk fission plants have) and they produce even more energy than fission plants. Tell me what you guys think. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: Bravo | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:22:37 01/21/05 Fri Nuclear power is a clean fuel which produces enormous power relatively cheaply. It has been given a bad reputation by the occasional meltdowns, which took place in exactly the sort of countries where one would expect them to be unable to run a whelk-stall, let alone an advanced fission plant. Would you trust the former communist Ukranian government with a building full of plutonium? With a few more nuclear plants we would be completely independent of those bizarre countries whose influence on the world is entirely predicated on their possession of nasty black goo under their sand, and our air would be a lot cleaner. Moreover, my physics teacher once explained the principal of disposal thus: take the nuclear waste, throw it into a very deep part of the sea; it will soon be covered with silt through which radiation can not penetrate, and the fish down there all glow in the dark anyway... As for nuclear fusion, this is a very good idea, if it can be achieved at temperatures below 20,000 degrees F, which is doubtful. Also, while there is no danger of fall-out or melt-down, it seems to me, from my vague knowledge, that there is a real danger of containment failure, which would leave a large, smouldering crater where western Europe used to be. What we really want is element 115, although the blighters in Germany, or was it Switzerland, who declared a few years ago that they had managed to create some of this stuff (which is the El Dorado of elemental research) have recently re-analysed their data and realised that they had in fact produced something altogether different. Alas. In any case, I don't think that my car could be converted to uranium fission. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Cold Fusion | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:51:43 01/21/05 Fri I doubt they'll be producing fusion reactions at that temperature for a long time. The current ITER project aims to produce a hydrogen plasma torus operating at over 100 million °C: warm enough to singe your eyebrows. I'm not sure about the consequences of containment failure and the radius of devastation it would cause. If it is indeed that large, then perhaps it is not worth exploring, as the consequence of an accident would be too severe to contemplate, even for a former Soviet Socialist Republic. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Well... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:46:00 01/21/05 Fri Don't go on my knowledge of science, since it is scanty to say the least. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: heh | |
|
Author: Kevin (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:59:58 01/21/05 Fri Moreover, my physics teacher once explained the principal of disposal thus: take the nuclear waste, throw it into a very deep part of the sea; it will soon be covered with silt through which radiation can not penetrate, and the fish down there all glow in the dark anyway... haha, that last part is amusing. But that sounds pretty logical. We here in America have a few power plants. Alot of people say there a large terrorist risk, but that shouldn't stop us from using them. Our disposal method is sticking the radio active material in to the side of a mountain. Well a few miles down inside it. It will be curious to see if it soaks back to the surface. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Or the Dounreay approach... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:57:53 01/21/05 Fri Where they dumped ppproximately 750m3 of radioactive waste down a shaft over many years, until it exploded in 1977! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: I live very close to the Pickering nuclear power plant outside Toronto and have never had any problems | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:04:45 01/21/05 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: It shows | |
|
Author: Marie Curie [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:38:08 01/21/05 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: monosyllabic witticisms from dead people are so clever | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:07:49 01/21/05 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Apologies for my apparent sesquipedalophobia | |
|
Author: A charity, not a dead person [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:38:02 01/21/05 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Not quite the point, laddie | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:54:10 01/21/05 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Australia is geologically very stable and has plenty of uranium | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:13:16 01/21/05 Fri Maybe that's why we prefer good old 19th century coal-fired power stations and one of the highest per capita levels of greenhouse gas emissions in the world. Not very bright, your average Aussie. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: haha | |
|
Author: Kevin (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 07:46:48 01/22/05 Sat Jim's comment about living next to a power plant reminded me of a british duo, who make comedy films. I watched it a few years back and couldn't stop laughing. It was about two British lads who owned a hotel right next to a nuclear power plant, that leaks in to the water. Anyway, it was pretty funny, and was wondering if anyone has ever seen it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: It was called Guest House Paridiso | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:41:54 01/22/05 Sat The characters are Richard Richard and Eddie Hitler. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Indeed | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:51:10 01/22/05 Sat aka Rik Mayall and Ade Edmondson [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Nuclear Energy/Uranium | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 06:44:13 01/24/05 Mon I am a strong supporter of nuclear power and I would like to see a French style energy policy (ie. over 75% of electricity coming from nuclear) in Australia and an FC. Global warming in an enormous problem that must be confronted urgently. It is a problem that will affect many of our Commonwealth friends, particulary island nations in the Pacific. We need to urgently reduce our greenhouse gas emmisions before it is too late and global warming becomes irreversible. The only way to realisticly do this is to adopt nuclear power and phase-out coal and other carbon-based power stations. Hydro power has a role to play but wind power typically costs about three times the price of nuclear power and solar fifteen times. We can't solve the problem of global warming by covering the countryside in windmills and trebling our electricity bills, the only way is through nuclear power. Australian energy policy is an area of policy that constantly annoys me. We are the largesrt emmiter of greenhouse gases per capita in the world because we have no nuclear power stations. Even the notoriously inefficient US is worse than us and so are countries such as Finland which use enormous amounts of electricity. Despite this we are becoming even more carbon dependent (the NSW government is even planning new coal-fired power stations!) Australia has about 30% of the worlds uranium reserves (the world's largest), inclunding the largest single reserves at Olympic Dam in South Australia. Unfortunanltly though, we don't produce 30% of the world's share. I think Canada has the second largest reserves at about 20%. Combined, an FC would control at least 50% of the world's uranium reserves. In my opinion we should be looking to take advantage of this valuable natural resource through the peaceful use of nuclear power. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |