Should we switch to alternative sources of energy?

[got tonkaed]

seemingly if i was a conservative candidate right now, my biggest push would be into alternative fuels as a method toward ensuring national security. I bet it would attract a lot of middle of the road and undecided voters, and with the right "values record" it would probably be a pretty simple path to electability.


There really could be a lot of cool things done if the right funding and proper innovaton can occur. Its probably one of the biggest benefits to the capitalist system really....if a good idea is out there, its possible it will take effect much quicker than with other systems.

[Chris7He]

i voted wind. not because the switch needs to be made anytine in the next hundred years or so but just when it is time it is the safest and easiest to get going. as long as there is hot and cold air masses there will be wind. and there is no chance of a nuclear melt down, no "acid wind" to melt the windmills. i can't really think of any adverse effect to wind power. can you? But anyway till then, i still love my oil.

Wind kills birds, there are not many places to build them, it is noisy, but that's it.

Birds kill birds, hydro power is noisier, just put them where there is plenty of wind.

There are many risk areas where there is TOO MUCH WIND. The wind turbines are easily damaged if wind exceeds a certain capacity.

[Chris7He]

I say all other ways are great alternative energy sources...I vote for everything except oil(too wasteful) nuclear(too dangerous) and coal(also too dangerous)

Coal is not dangerous considering we use zero-emissions coal plants and don't ever run out of oil.

[Chris7He]

Have you ever heard of nuclear power stations in space?

How exactly are you planning to get your reactor up there? The cost of hauling a fission reactor into space far outweighs any kind of benifit you'll get from having it there.

it may be something that could be worked on in the future but i wonder....what would have to be sacrificed as an expense. You are talking about a project that multiple nations would have to be very involved in. Just the trip to mars (another pretty difficult endeavor) is essentially taking coalitions of all of the developed world, since no one nation can fund that.

Actually, I doubt it'll ever be that expensive or difficult to construct. If you've got nanotech, then just give them a huge pile of carbon (or whatever your construction material is) at the location where you want your elevator and watch. Also, pray that whoever you hired to program the was mildly competent so they don't go rogue or construct it poorly (no-one wants to be hit by a few hundred kilometres of carbon tubing from orbit).
Really, once you initially invest in the nanotechnology research (if it comes to anything any time in the near future, that is) the actual construction is fairly cheap and easy (since you're not doing it).

Uranium and Hydrogen can be collected in space, so they may prove to be important to space travel and space colonies.

Whut? If you've got to the technological level where you can reasonably access a source of uranium outside the Earth's gravity well, what exactly are you doing using it for energy?

Anyway, Fusion and Solar FTW.
Go to the Moon and you've got access to all the Helium-3 and sunlight you could ever concievably use.

1. I said this is an endeavor to be used in the future. We need to miniaturize nuclear reactors.
2. Nuclear power will be vital to space travel and is quite affordable and is the cheapest source of energy to power the masses (it's not cheap, but the volts and amps it produces is fucking amazing!!!). That proves my space elevator point (I haven't seen the documentary in a while)
3. Uranium and radioactive material is quite common in space along with hydrogen (the most common element in the Universe). We could just get our methan from the atmostpheres of Jupiter or Saturn (the only problem being how we can extract without getting pulled in).

[got tonkaed]

i do think a lot of the issues would be solved if nanotech got reasonably sorted out...but for the moment thats no better than some of the things we already have going, its just trading one difficult solution for another. But in time i agree it will probably be much more practical to do.

Nuclear power is considered a must for any space travel, even to mars according to that Mars rising special and probably most anyone else whose studying space travel over large distances. Its just much more cost effcient.

[Chris7He]

The fact that we have to change our energy source is obvious. The fact to which one is not.

Solar is not good enough to be the main source yet but research can improve that. Wind has it's limitations, it has to be in the country as it is extremely loud and so can't be in the city, nuclear is the one which could provide the most power but it is dangerous

Nuclear power is not dangerous. We've been building nukes for decades without one going off accidentally. It's not like it's gonna happen now.

[Chris7He]

i do think a lot of the issues would be solved if nanotech got reasonably sorted out...but for the moment thats no better than some of the things we already have going, its just trading one difficult solution for another. But in time i agree it will probably be much more practical to do.

Nuclear power is considered a must for any space travel, even to mars according to that Mars rising special and probably most anyone else whose studying space travel over large distances. Its just much more cost effcient.

Nuclear power is cost efficient in the long run. Nanotechnology (I agree) is vital and may prove to solve most, if not all, of the worlds' problems.

[Snorri1234]

It's pronounced: "nukulur".

[Iliad]

The fact that we have to change our energy source is obvious. The fact to which one is not.

Solar is not good enough to be the main source yet but research can improve that. Wind has it's limitations, it has to be in the country as it is extremely loud and so can't be in the city, nuclear is the one which could provide the most power but it is dangerous

Nuclear power is not dangerous. We've been building nukes for decades without one going off accidentally. It's not like it's gonna happen now.

Google chernobyl for me please. And you realise nuclear energy IS NOT building nukes?

While nukes may be efficient it is also extremely dangerous. And where would you dump the waste? The waste takes millions of years to lose radioactivity.

It's one thing to build nukes another to build nuclear stations. And since you want to use it as a number one source the number of nuclear stations and potential meltdowns is pretty frightening.

[Chris7He]

The fact that we have to change our energy source is obvious. The fact to which one is not.

Solar is not good enough to be the main source yet but research can improve that. Wind has it's limitations, it has to be in the country as it is extremely loud and so can't be in the city, nuclear is the one which could provide the most power but it is dangerous

Nuclear power is not dangerous. We've been building nukes for decades without one going off accidentally. It's not like it's gonna happen now.

Google chernobyl for me please. And you realise nuclear energy IS NOT building nukes?

While nukes may be efficient it is also extremely dangerous. And where would you dump the waste? The waste takes millions of years to lose radioactivity.

It's one thing to build nukes another to build nuclear stations. And since you want to use it as a number one source the number of nuclear stations and potential meltdowns is pretty frightening.

Nuclear power plants are safer than the nuclear weapons. Chernobyl was caused by the local authorities allowing coal miners to run the plant. Shoot the waste into outer space.

[Iliad]

The fact that we have to change our energy source is obvious. The fact to which one is not.

Solar is not good enough to be the main source yet but research can improve that. Wind has it's limitations, it has to be in the country as it is extremely loud and so can't be in the city, nuclear is the one which could provide the most power but it is dangerous

Nuclear power is not dangerous. We've been building nukes for decades without one going off accidentally. It's not like it's gonna happen now.

Google chernobyl for me please. And you realise nuclear energy IS NOT building nukes?

While nukes may be efficient it is also extremely dangerous. And where would you dump the waste? The waste takes millions of years to lose radioactivity.

It's one thing to build nukes another to build nuclear stations. And since you want to use it as a number one source the number of nuclear stations and potential meltdowns is pretty frightening.

Nuclear power plants are safer than the nuclear weapons. Chernobyl was caused by the local authorities allowing coal miners to run the plant. Shoot the waste into outer space.

Actually the meltdown was caused by the fact that they were trying to tweak something and not because of coal miners . And are you serious about the waste? You realise the amount of power needed to shoot it into outer space makes the nuclear station useless? Do you know how much energy is needed to fly something into outer space. And how do you know it's not going to come back? How do you know a giant radioactive rock won't come back to hit Earth?

[Chris7He]

Actually the meltdown was caused by the fact that they were trying to tweak something and not because of coal miners . And are you serious about the waste? You realise the amount of power needed to shoot it into outer space makes the nuclear station useless? Do you know how much energy is needed to fly something into outer space. And how do you know it's not going to come back? How do you know a giant radioactive rock won't come back to hit Earth?

The Chernobyl meltdown was caused by testing run by coal miners not fucking tweaks.

I'm sure that a nuclear fuel cycle (in which te waste is used as fuel) will work. Low level waste can simply be discharged into the environment without causing much damage.

[Iliad]

Actually the meltdown was caused by the fact that they were trying to tweak something and not because of coal miners . And are you serious about the waste? You realise the amount of power needed to shoot it into outer space makes the nuclear station useless? Do you know how much energy is needed to fly something into outer space. And how do you know it's not going to come back? How do you know a giant radioactive rock won't come back to hit Earth?

The Chernobyl meltdown was caused by testing run by coal miners not fucking tweaks.

I'm sure that a nuclear fuel cycle (in which te waste is used as fuel) will work. Low level waste can simply be discharged into the environment without causing much damage.

Jesus christ. That's what I said. They tried to tweak it and were testing. It was not because they were coal miners

So instead of chucking into space you decide just to chuck into the environment. Are you completely retarded? You want to chuck rock that is radioactive and will be radioactive for millions of ayears into the environment and you think that it won't cause much damage?

[Chris7He]

Actually the meltdown was caused by the fact that they were trying to tweak something and not because of coal miners . And are you serious about the waste? You realise the amount of power needed to shoot it into outer space makes the nuclear station useless? Do you know how much energy is needed to fly something into outer space. And how do you know it's not going to come back? How do you know a giant radioactive rock won't come back to hit Earth?

The Chernobyl meltdown was caused by testing run by coal miners not fucking tweaks.

I'm sure that a nuclear fuel cycle (in which te waste is used as fuel) will work. Low level waste can simply be discharged into the environment without causing much damage.

Jesus christ. That's what I said. They tried to tweak it and were testing. It was not because they were coal miners

So instead of chucking into space you decide just to chuck into the environment. Are you completely retarded? You want to chuck rock that is radioactive and will be radioactive for millions of ayears into the environment and you think that it won't cause much damage?

Much of nuclear waste can be diluted and placed back in the environment (low level waste). The rest is 'recycled' or shoved into the ground (radioactive isotopes).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository

They weren't tweaking problems. They were checking for them, dumbass!

PS-This reactor crew had had little or no experience in nuclear power plants, many had been drafted in from coal powered plants and another had had a little experience with nuclear submarine power plants.

[Iliad]

Actually the meltdown was caused by the fact that they were trying to tweak something and not because of coal miners . And are you serious about the waste? You realise the amount of power needed to shoot it into outer space makes the nuclear station useless? Do you know how much energy is needed to fly something into outer space. And how do you know it's not going to come back? How do you know a giant radioactive rock won't come back to hit Earth?

The Chernobyl meltdown was caused by testing run by coal miners not fucking tweaks.

I'm sure that a nuclear fuel cycle (in which te waste is used as fuel) will work. Low level waste can simply be discharged into the environment without causing much damage.

Jesus christ. That's what I said. They tried to tweak it and were testing. It was not because they were coal miners

So instead of chucking into space you decide just to chuck into the environment. Are you completely retarded? You want to chuck rock that is radioactive and will be radioactive for millions of ayears into the environment and you think that it won't cause much damage?

Much of nuclear waste can be diluted and placed back in the environment (low level waste). The rest is 'recycled' or shoved into the ground (radioactive isotopes).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository

They weren't tweaking problems. They were checking for them, dumbass!

PS-This reactor crew had had little or no experience in nuclear power plants, many had been drafted in from coal powered plants and another had had a little experience with nuclear submarine power plants.

Goddamit *Sigh*
Read my words: the Chernoby lahppened because they were testing the reactor. They were trying to change something.

Yeah you can place the wate into the ground . Except then that ground will have radioactive waste under it for millions of years. Where yill you put it? How do you know it won't affect the enviroment? How do you know it won't leak through say if there i too much. You don't know that. And there isn't that much space on the Earth hwere you can just dump nuclear waste. You can't put it under water you can't put it where there are or could be earthquakes or other geological activity. There is shitload of criteria and you simply can't put it there.

[Chris7He]

Actually the meltdown was caused by the fact that they were trying to tweak something and not because of coal miners . And are you serious about the waste? You realise the amount of power needed to shoot it into outer space makes the nuclear station useless? Do you know how much energy is needed to fly something into outer space. And how do you know it's not going to come back? How do you know a giant radioactive rock won't come back to hit Earth?

The Chernobyl meltdown was caused by testing run by coal miners not fucking tweaks.

I'm sure that a nuclear fuel cycle (in which te waste is used as fuel) will work. Low level waste can simply be discharged into the environment without causing much damage.

Jesus christ. That's what I said. They tried to tweak it and were testing. It was not because they were coal miners

So instead of chucking into space you decide just to chuck into the environment. Are you completely retarded? You want to chuck rock that is radioactive and will be radioactive for millions of ayears into the environment and you think that it won't cause much damage?

Much of nuclear waste can be diluted and placed back in the environment (low level waste). The rest is 'recycled' or shoved into the ground (radioactive isotopes).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository

They weren't tweaking problems. They were checking for them, dumbass!

PS-This reactor crew had had little or no experience in nuclear power plants, many had been drafted in from coal powered plants and another had had a little experience with nuclear submarine power plants.

Goddamit *Sigh*
Read my words: the Chernoby lahppened because they were testing the reactor. They were trying to change something.

Yeah you can place the wate into the ground . Except then that ground will have radioactive waste under it for millions of years. Where yill you put it? How do you know it won't affect the enviroment? How do you know it won't leak through say if there i too much. You don't know that. And there isn't that much space on the Earth hwere you can just dump nuclear waste. You can't put it under water you can't put it where there are or could be earthquakes or other geological activity. There is shitload of criteria and you simply can't put it there.

Did you fucking read about the Nuclear Fuel Cycle? Sticking it in the ground is just a back up plan.

Chernobyl-The operators violated plant procedures and were ignorant of the safety requirements needed by the RBMK design. This is partly due to their lack of knowledge of the reactor's design as well as lack of experience and training. Several procedural irregularities also contributed to causing the accident. One was insufficient communication between the safety officers and the operators in charge of the experiment being run that night.
A shift change meant that almost all of the original staff who may have been aware of some difficulties with the initialization of the test, had left the site. The remaining operators switched off many of the safety systems, unaware of the plant's published technical guidelines.

[Iliad]

Actually the meltdown was caused by the fact that they were trying to tweak something and not because of coal miners . And are you serious about the waste? You realise the amount of power needed to shoot it into outer space makes the nuclear station useless? Do you know how much energy is needed to fly something into outer space. And how do you know it's not going to come back? How do you know a giant radioactive rock won't come back to hit Earth?

The Chernobyl meltdown was caused by testing run by coal miners not fucking tweaks.

I'm sure that a nuclear fuel cycle (in which te waste is used as fuel) will work. Low level waste can simply be discharged into the environment without causing much damage.

Jesus christ. That's what I said. They tried to tweak it and were testing. It was not because they were coal miners

So instead of chucking into space you decide just to chuck into the environment. Are you completely retarded? You want to chuck rock that is radioactive and will be radioactive for millions of ayears into the environment and you think that it won't cause much damage?

Much of nuclear waste can be diluted and placed back in the environment (low level waste). The rest is 'recycled' or shoved into the ground (radioactive isotopes).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository

They weren't tweaking problems. They were checking for them, dumbass!

PS-This reactor crew had had little or no experience in nuclear power plants, many had been drafted in from coal powered plants and another had had a little experience with nuclear submarine power plants.

Goddamit *Sigh*
Read my words: the Chernoby lahppened because they were testing the reactor. They were trying to change something.

Yeah you can place the wate into the ground . Except then that ground will have radioactive waste under it for millions of years. Where yill you put it? How do you know it won't affect the enviroment? How do you know it won't leak through say if there i too much. You don't know that. And there isn't that much space on the Earth hwere you can just dump nuclear waste. You can't put it under water you can't put it where there are or could be earthquakes or other geological activity. There is shitload of criteria and you simply can't put it there.

Did you fucking read about the Nuclear Fuel Cycle? Sticking it in the ground is just a back up plan.

Chernobyl-The operators violated plant procedures and were ignorant of the safety requirements needed by the RBMK design. This is partly due to their lack of knowledge of the reactor's design as well as lack of experience and training. Several procedural irregularities also contributed to causing the accident. One was insufficient communication between the safety officers and the operators in charge of the experiment being run that night.
A shift change meant that almost all of the original staff who may have been aware of some difficulties with the initialization of the test, had left the site. The remaining operators switched off many of the safety systems, unaware of the plant's published technical guidelines.

And first question: how do you know it won't happen again? If you propose to build nuclear reactors how do you know there won't be a breach somewhere?

And you realise that radioactive fueal is also quite limited?

[Chris7He]

1. If we ACTUALLY APPLY our safety standards to nuclear reactors, we SHOULD have NO PROBLEMS.
2. We can make (isolate) more fuel or extract it from elsewhere. We don't have to just rely on nuclear power. We can use fusion and solar.

[Iliad]

1. If we ACTUALLY APPLY our safety standards to nuclear reactors, we SHOULD have NO PROBLEMS.
2. We can make (isolate) more fuel or extract it from elsewhere. We don't have to just rely on nuclear power. We can use fusion and solar.

1.But how do you know they are enough? How do you know that we know enough about nuclear energy to be using it as a sole source of energy. How do you know if you build heaps or reactors somewhere someone doesn't follow them?

2.So now you are backtracking into solar.

3. My point is that nuclear energy is too dangerous not enough fuel to be used asa teh main source of energy and waste is a massive problem

4. The fact is if a nuclear stations meldowns the effects will be felt for a very long time and frankly I don't want the future generation to live on a radioactive earth

[Chris7He]

1. If we ACTUALLY APPLY our safety standards to nuclear reactors, we SHOULD have NO PROBLEMS.
2. We can make (isolate) more fuel or extract it from elsewhere. We don't have to just rely on nuclear power. We can use fusion and solar.

1.But how do you know they are enough? How do you know that we know enough about nuclear energy to be using it as a sole source of energy. How do you know if you build heaps or reactors somewhere someone doesn't follow them?

2.So now you are backtracking into solar.

3. My point is that nuclear energy is too dangerous not enough fuel to be used asa teh main source of energy and waste is a massive problem

4. The fact is if a nuclear stations meldowns the effects will be felt for a very long time and frankly I don't want the future generation to live on a radioactive earth

I'm not back tracking to solar. I'm defending nuclear power. I didn't have to defend solar. I never said that nuclear power should be used widespread. I forgot about hydrogen power. There is always nuclear fusion and/or cold fusion. Nuclear meltdowns are caused by basic idiocy. If we treated nuclear power the same way we treated nuclear weapons, we'd be able to use it to a safer extent.

[Iliad]

1. If we ACTUALLY APPLY our safety standards to nuclear reactors, we SHOULD have NO PROBLEMS.
2. We can make (isolate) more fuel or extract it from elsewhere. We don't have to just rely on nuclear power. We can use fusion and solar.

1.But how do you know they are enough? How do you know that we know enough about nuclear energy to be using it as a sole source of energy. How do you know if you build heaps or reactors somewhere someone doesn't follow them?

2.So now you are backtracking into solar.

3. My point is that nuclear energy is too dangerous not enough fuel to be used asa teh main source of energy and waste is a massive problem

4. The fact is if a nuclear stations meldowns the effects will be felt for a very long time and frankly I don't want the future generation to live on a radioactive earth

I'm not back tracking to solar. I'm defending nuclear power. I didn't have to defend solar. I never said that nuclear power should be used widespread. I forgot about hydrogen power. There is always nuclear fusion and/or cold fusion. Nuclear meltdowns are caused by basic idiocy. If we treated nuclear power the same way we treated nuclear weapons, we'd be able to use it to a safer extent.

So you're saying that meltdowns are cause by idiocy? SO how do you know it won't happen? How do you know there won't be a meltdown. The point is nuclear power is dangerous. the risk of what might happen is way too great.

[Chris7He]

1. If we ACTUALLY APPLY our safety standards to nuclear reactors, we SHOULD have NO PROBLEMS.
2. We can make (isolate) more fuel or extract it from elsewhere. We don't have to just rely on nuclear power. We can use fusion and solar.

1.But how do you know they are enough? How do you know that we know enough about nuclear energy to be using it as a sole source of energy. How do you know if you build heaps or reactors somewhere someone doesn't follow them?

2.So now you are backtracking into solar.

3. My point is that nuclear energy is too dangerous not enough fuel to be used asa teh main source of energy and waste is a massive problem

4. The fact is if a nuclear stations meldowns the effects will be felt for a very long time and frankly I don't want the future generation to live on a radioactive earth

I'm not back tracking to solar. I'm defending nuclear power. I didn't have to defend solar. I never said that nuclear power should be used widespread. I forgot about hydrogen power. There is always nuclear fusion and/or cold fusion. Nuclear meltdowns are caused by basic idiocy. If we treated nuclear power the same way we treated nuclear weapons, we'd be able to use it to a safer extent.

So you're saying that meltdowns are cause by idiocy? SO how do you know it won't happen? How do you know there won't be a meltdown. The point is nuclear power is dangerous. the risk of what might happen is way too great.

Nuclear fusion, much?

Nuclear weapons are dangerous too, but how the f*ck did we not have a nuclear weapons accident?

[Iliad]

1. If we ACTUALLY APPLY our safety standards to nuclear reactors, we SHOULD have NO PROBLEMS.
2. We can make (isolate) more fuel or extract it from elsewhere. We don't have to just rely on nuclear power. We can use fusion and solar.

1.But how do you know they are enough? How do you know that we know enough about nuclear energy to be using it as a sole source of energy. How do you know if you build heaps or reactors somewhere someone doesn't follow them?

2.So now you are backtracking into solar.

3. My point is that nuclear energy is too dangerous not enough fuel to be used asa teh main source of energy and waste is a massive problem

4. The fact is if a nuclear stations meldowns the effects will be felt for a very long time and frankly I don't want the future generation to live on a radioactive earth

I'm not back tracking to solar. I'm defending nuclear power. I didn't have to defend solar. I never said that nuclear power should be used widespread. I forgot about hydrogen power. There is always nuclear fusion and/or cold fusion. Nuclear meltdowns are caused by basic idiocy. If we treated nuclear power the same way we treated nuclear weapons, we'd be able to use it to a safer extent.

So you're saying that meltdowns are cause by idiocy? SO how do you know it won't happen? How do you know there won't be a meltdown. The point is nuclear power is dangerous. the risk of what might happen is way too great.

Nuclear fusion, much?

Nuclear weapons are dangerous too, but how the f*ck did we not have a nuclear weapons accident?

I don't know maybe because nuclear weapons have only been used twice? Dude just because nuke weapons haven't gone boom doesn't mean nuclear statiosn will.


And I will stop this debate now because you are either a young kid who's obsessed with that weird ginger kid or you're just a troll and I'm not going to have a debate either way.

[Chris7He]

You're gonna quit this debate because you are losing. I never said that a nuclear disaster was not going to happen, but if we apply the concepts that we apply to the production and storage of nuclear weapons we should not have a disaster.

[Iliad]

You're gonna quit this debate because you are losing. I never said that a nuclear disaster was not going to happen, but if we apply the concepts that we apply to the production and storage of nuclear weapons we should not have a disaster.

*Sigh* no I am not losing I am bored.
Look here:

1. Nuclear energy is the most efficient but the most dangerous.

2. Fuel is rare and will run out by 2060 if we use nuclear on a regular basis.

3. Removing waste is extremely difficult because it can do a lot of damage to the biosphere, and it takes ages fro it to lose radioactivity and the waste ground can't be in a lplace where there is geological activity.

4. You may claim that a meltdown isn't going to happen but what happens if it does? You can't be certain that your rules will be enough or that people will follow them. If there is a meltdown then a very large area will be pretty much completely useless.

5. If there is a meltdown how do you know if the radioactivity reaches another nuclear station there won't be a chain reaction of meltdowns? The fact is we don't know enough about nuclear energy.


6.You know what happened in Chernobyl. You know what happened in Nagaska and Hiroshimo. The effects are still being felt today and will be felt for a long time.

7. The risk of a meltdown OR waste being exposed to the biosphere is too much. If it does happen it will haunt the future generations for a logn time and I am against that.

8.As you see nuclear energy is not safe or long-term so I do not believe it is the way to go. There are plenty of other energy sources which are renewable(and so long-term) and safe.

9. And with that, child/troll I bid you goodbye