«

[punch999]

In world war 2 I Think it was nessacary. If we didnt drop the bomb in order to end the war america would have had to invade japan. The japanise would have fought to the last man and woman and killed more people then it did dropping the bomb for both sides of the conflict

[ReamusLQ]

yeah weapons are bad, but there are many benefits to using nuclear power as opposed to say coal.

Yes, the most ideal would for everything to be solar powered, thermal energy from volcanic activity (I know hawaii does a lot of that), wind powered, dams, or something like that. However, this is unavailable in many areas.

I remember asking my Brother-in-Law about Nuclear power once, because he's a nuclear physicist/engineer, and works in a plant. I was just asking him about if it really is clean, what the big complaints are about it, etc. etc. He said that THEORETICALLY, it is the most cost-effective, and the cleanest for the environment, but that the goevrnment provents it from being that way. I asked him what he meant, and he said that it is impossible to harness all of the energy produced when they split the atom. A lot of the energy goes back into the waste created from the process. He then informed me that it is possible, and that they have done it, to re-use the waste and harness the energy from it, many many MANY times over, reducing the waste each time this procedure is performed. However, the government has prohibitted this for some reason, I think they thought it would be too dangerous, even though the process is almost the exact same. Power produced from atom splitting is also produced in very LARGE amounts...they get quite a bit of bang for their buck.

Probably the most ideal forum of Nuclear Energy, would instead of smashing the atoms, bonding them (the same sort of Fusion the sun uses). Unfortunately, we do not have the capabilities to do so, and we do it very poorly, as you need mass amounts of heat we end up spending more energy on it than we get out of it. Fusion is out.

There is, of course, the well longed after "cold fusion", which scientists say is theoretically possible, no one has been able to make it work. For those who don't know, "Cold Fusion" is the exact same process as normal fusion, but simply with out the heat required. It would basically let you harness energy from anything, even water.

So although the process of atom splitting does cause radioactive waste, it doesn't really have to, but the stupid government doesn't let companies recycle it. Yes, it does it's fair share of polluting to the environment, but not as much as coal plants produce. There are worse polluters on this planet than nuclear plants

[Doubler]

It's not just about nuclear power (and it's dangers), it's about the whole society we live in. Nuclear power in my opinion will only prolong something that can not last. But I repeat myself :P

And I can understand the need for nuclear weapons too. But in my opinion the only reason we need them is because they already exist. As such I'm firmly agains them.

[Shrek]

Originally posted by ReamusLQ@Aug 6 2005, 06:35 PM
Probably the most ideal forum of Nuclear Energy, would instead of smashing the atoms, bonding them (the same sort of Fusion the sun uses).* Unfortunately, we do not have the capabilities to do so, and we do it very poorly, as you need mass amounts of heat we end up spending more energy on it than we get out of it.* Fusion is out.

well fusion will not be a myth in a few years.... ITER is going to be the first fusion reactor in the world to produce 500 MW of power from plasma operation. it is expected to be builted and operating in 2016 ( about 10 years from now).

i voted for "Yes, but with the power bit only", meaning only that if a nuclear power plant exists, then why not use it? besides, with the price of oil getting to where they are now - and i susppect it will never go back, only up - it is a good alternative.

of course if the question was "do you agree with the construction of a new nuclear power plant?" i would say NO :Titan:

[Toxik]

but the nuclear plant need oil..in some way
were too dependant on gasoline

[Doc Adrian]

I don't like Nuclear weapons or Nuclear Power (Though oil and coal has its serious drawbacks of its own), but unfortunatly like people have said before...when a new technology comes out, you always open a pandoras box and you can't uninvent things. So if we don't basically keep them around, some person will and they will either threaten everyone at missle point or actually use one of them...but the more we have the more dangerous things get. Fairly, it is a no win situation however you look at it.

The Missles aren't the only thing..every submarine sinking or accident of any Nuclear powered military vessel releases the poisons as well.

I like the idea of clean power like solar, though I have not read much of it and I heard that the solar arrays aren't that efficient...of course since the energy industry might have a reason not to make it efficient we can't be entirely sure. I am also in favor of Hydro and Wind power and generally just making the existing methods cleaner and safer.

Unfortunatly for us, the energy industry, like every other industry, is more concerned about the mighty dollar (or if you prefer Yen, Euro, Pound, etc.) and they look at shortages in fuels as a way to increase the price not as a problem but as short term gains.
Like when the Electric lights came out the oil lamp fuel salesman pointed out how it would electrocute you to death, and when the Automobile came out the buggy whip salesman was sure to point out how it was unnatural.

[Danny252]

well, calling on a few conversations today..
Someone suggested to stick the waste in a subduction zone, where 2 plates are moving into the earth. just dont let it back up.
build a space elevator and dump it on the moon. it'll look good in green. and space elevators are possible... just noone wants teh pay
or chuck it in teh sun.

[Toxik]

that would require periodical space flights...i think this is beyond our capability
or else there would be mass tourism and Disney space station already..

i found this flash about nuclear weapons.Its really nice
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/256609

[Quintopotere]

I voted yes for nuclear power.

Yes, we need to upgrade that technology, waiting to have the cool fusion...
Anyway quite every kind of production of energy has an impact on the environment! Think about covering great zones with solar panels: under them nothing will live without the Sun!
And how many times i've heard about ambientalists protesting about wind generators that degrade the environmet...

About nuclear weapons there is not to much to say: humanity should just have no weapons, and i mean every kind of weapon! :not_ok:

[PrejudiceSucks]

To be honest, people were killing each other when we didn´t even have tools, it´s just our nature.

And this might sound heartless, but they completely deserved to be blown up for what they did to China. If you think what Saddam Hussein was doing to the Kurds was bad then you´re not going to like what they did to the Chinese.

I support nuclear power, but we need to work out a way of solving the problem of nuclear waste.