Staredit Network > Forums > Null > Topic: Nuclear Power - Y/N?
Nuclear Power - Y/N?
Apr 16 2010, 11:59 pm
By: Super Duper
Pages: 1 2 3 >
 
Polls
Should Nuclear Energy be made? Is it worth the risks?
Should Nuclear Energy be made? Is it worth the risks?
Answer Votes Percentage % Voters
#1 Nuclear Power is too dangerous and should not be used. 2
 
5%
#2 Nuclear Power is clean to the environment and should be used as much as possible. 14
 
33%
#3 Nuclear Power should be used as long as we pay attention to safety issues. 25
 
59%
#4 There are other ways to get energy. Solar Panels, Wind Turbines etc. 2
 
5%
Please login to vote.
Poll has 43 votes. You can vote for at most 1 option(s).

Apr 16 2010, 11:59 pm Super Duper Post #1



Let me start by saying the Nuclear Energy Power Plants have been mostly made in the nineteen hundreds. If Power Plants were made here in 2010, then they would be much more safe. :D
Now, moving on...
Nuclear Energy causes no pollution, which reduced global warming by a ton. Therefore, it provides a clean atmosphere. However, if a Nuclear Power Plant meltdowns, all the radiated particles will float in the air and they will contaminate the soil, water supply and air for millions of years :( .
But... It provides energy made in the USA and one human in a lifetime only makes about 1 coke can of nuclear waste. So every year, they only have to take the nuclear waste and go bury it in a desert or something.
You might think "So what if the energy is made in the USA?"? Well think of it like this. If we get into a conflict with a country which gives us coal, oil and fossil fuel, we get a large amount of energy cut off and we depend on other countries to provide us the energy. Besides, fossil fuel is predicted to run out in the next 3-4 centuries, so I don't think that will get us so far.
Now, the question...
Is nuclear energy worth the risks? :|
I needn't remind you of Chernobyl. :/
I voted #3. :)



None.

Apr 17 2010, 12:10 am EzTerix Post #2



Nuclear as well as solar panels, wind turbines all sound like good energy ideas. However nuclear energy can be very dangerous if mishandled like you said so we always need a keen eye on it.



None.

Apr 17 2010, 12:15 am LoTu)S Post #3



Keep a variety, like lings and hydras. voted for #3



None.

Apr 17 2010, 12:31 am Newb Post #4



Hopefully we can soon get rid of this. There are many problems, the biggest being a meltdown, and another big problem is waste. The nuclear rods they use only last for so long, but remain radioactive for around another 80 years, so most get shipped away and buried. If something goes wrong when shipping it, it could cause many problems if the transport crashes, etc.



None.

Apr 17 2010, 12:36 am O)FaRTy1billion[MM] Post #5

👻 👾 👽 💪

There aren't any problems.

Meltdowns don't happen, especially in a modern cores where proper fail-safes can be put in place.
The "rods" are just tubes full of little solid pellets. They are stored in very well-protected casings that are put on trucks and rail cars. If something goes wrong when shipping it, you just pick up the casing and continue. It isn't an emergency, it isn't urgent, it isn't a big deal.



TinyMap2 - Latest in map compression! ( 7/09/14 - New build! )
EUD Action Enabler - Lightweight EUD/EPD support! (ChaosLauncher/MPQDraft support!)
EUDDB - topic - Help out by adding your EUDs! Or Submit reference files in the References tab!
MapSketch - New image->map generator!
EUDTrig - topic - Quickly and easily convert offsets to EUDs! (extended players supported)
SC2 Map Texture Mask Importer/Exporter - Edit texture placement in an image editor!
\:farty\: This page has been viewed [img]http://farty1billion.dyndns.org/Clicky.php?img.gif[/img] times!

Apr 17 2010, 12:40 am Super Duper Post #6



Yes, but can we risk another incident like Chernobyl?

EDIT: By the way, once a year, we will only have about a shoebox of nuclear waste that we go and bury in a desert, so waste isnt such a big deal. (I think I said that already, too lazy to go back and check).



None.

Apr 17 2010, 12:42 am Aristocrat Post #7



Nuclear reactors *are* quite inefficient though; only 4% of the actual nuclear fuel is used in non-breeder reactors, and it's not economically feasible to re-enrich the waste. Although there is more uranium on Earth than tin, it won't last forever. Sustained uranium mining is more of an issue (in the very long-term view) than radioactive contamination.

Quote
Besides, fossil fuel is predicted to run out in the next 3-4 decades, so I don't think that will get us so far.

Fix'd.

EDIT> Chernobyl was devastating, but by no means a common occurrence.



None.

Apr 17 2010, 12:42 am O)FaRTy1billion[MM] Post #8

👻 👾 👽 💪

Quote from Super Duper
Yes, but can we risk another incident like Chernobyl?
Which happened once.
Also : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Conditions_prior_to_the_accident
"... as long as we pay attention to safety issues." should be a given, no matter what is done. :P

Also, here's one of the containers:
Collapsable Box




TinyMap2 - Latest in map compression! ( 7/09/14 - New build! )
EUD Action Enabler - Lightweight EUD/EPD support! (ChaosLauncher/MPQDraft support!)
EUDDB - topic - Help out by adding your EUDs! Or Submit reference files in the References tab!
MapSketch - New image->map generator!
EUDTrig - topic - Quickly and easily convert offsets to EUDs! (extended players supported)
SC2 Map Texture Mask Importer/Exporter - Edit texture placement in an image editor!
\:farty\: This page has been viewed [img]http://farty1billion.dyndns.org/Clicky.php?img.gif[/img] times!

Apr 17 2010, 12:43 am Super Duper Post #9



3-4 decades? No. I admit, 4 centuries is kind of a stretch, but we should have enough fossil fuel for the next century, guaranteed.



None.

Apr 17 2010, 12:47 am Aristocrat Post #10



Quote from Super Duper
3-4 decades? No. I admit, 4 centuries is kind of a stretch, but we should have enough fossil fuel for the next century, guaranteed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil



None.

Apr 17 2010, 12:50 am Super Duper Post #11



It's best noted that predictions arent always accurate and that wikipedia can be edited by any passing user.



None.

Apr 17 2010, 12:54 am Newb Post #12



Well I bet in 3-4 decades we will not be using nuclear reactors, because we will be no longer using fossil fuels and if that's the case then there will be no need for Nuclear Reactors, since they produce so little of our total energy.

Quote
EDIT: By the way, once a year, we will only have about a shoebox of nuclear waste that we go and bury in a desert, so waste isnt such a big deal. (I think I said that already, too lazy to go back and check).

Ha, a shoebox? Show me your sources.

And no, wiki is almost impossible to update. My friend tried deleting text, moving pictures, adding, etc. It goes back instantly.



None.

Apr 17 2010, 12:55 am Aristocrat Post #13



Quote from Super Duper
It's best noted that predictions arent always accurate and that wikipedia can be edited by any passing user.

Yeah, and somehow passing users can also edit the sources from which Wikipedia cites its articles through magic.

I was making a point. Listen to it or ignore it. I don't really care.

EDIT>
Quote from Newb
Well I bet in 3-4 decades we will not be using nuclear reactors, because we will be no longer using fossil fuels and if that's the case then there will be no need for Nuclear Reactors, since they produce so little of our total energy.

Quote
EDIT: By the way, once a year, we will only have about a shoebox of nuclear waste that we go and bury in a desert, so waste isnt such a big deal. (I think I said that already, too lazy to go back and check).

Ha, a shoebox? Show me your sources.

OH GOD THE IGNORANCE
-Nuclear reactors produce 20% of the US's energy, with production ratio of up to 76% for European countries.
-Nuclear fuel is not fossil fuel.
-E = mc^2



None.

Apr 17 2010, 12:58 am Super Duper Post #14



Quote from name:doomedrusher
OH GOD THE IGNORANCE
QFT

Quote
Well I bet in 3-4 decades we will not be using nuclear reactors, because we will be no longer using fossil fuels and if that's the case then there will be no need for Nuclear Reactors, since they produce so little of our total energy.

I think you are one of those people that hear the word "nuclear" and think of nuclear bombs. Its good for society (sometimes) and is possibly our energy future.



None.

Apr 17 2010, 1:04 am MasterJohnny Post #15



I voted #1
I extremely disagree with #2 because you have to mine out uranium. But is still better than fossil fuels.
How is #1 and #4 different from each other?



Philosophy deals with unanswered questions. Religion deals with unquestioned answers. I am a Mathematician

Apr 17 2010, 1:06 am Ahli Post #16

I do stuff and thingies... Try widening and reducing the number of small nooks and crannies to correct the problem.

In the longterm the humans should use regenerative energy.
But currently the energy need on earth will raise (hi china). -> We need more energy.

-> regenerative energy isn't that effective atm to fully provide energy for the earth.
-> We have to continue to use nuclear power.

Btw, coal power plants are worse than a nuclear power plants in my opinion.




Apr 17 2010, 1:06 am Aristocrat Post #17



Quote from MasterJohnny
I voted #1
I extremely disagree with #2 because you have to mine out uranium. But is still better than fossil fuels.
How is #1 and #4 different from each other?

1 implies immediate abolition of nuclear power whereas 4 advocates a slow transition from nuclear power to alternative sources.

EDIT> Ahli, play this:
http://www.kongregate.com/games/larsiusprime/super-energy-apocalypse-recycled

XD



None.

Apr 17 2010, 2:23 am Centreri Post #18

Relatively ancient and inactive

Okay, first of all, peak oil is an accepted fact. And unless Iraq increases production significantly, it probably already passed. Gas and coal will eventually too, if they didn't. There's shale oil which some claim is so abundant that it could stop peak oil, but that might not be easy enough to extract en masse to be economically viable for a long time. Either way, we should go for nuclear energy. All the major companies making nuclear reactors, be they Russian, French, American or other (admittedly, I'm not sure about Asian ones), have drastically improved their security mechanisms since the Chernobyl incident. The chance of something like this happening again is very, very small, and almost definitely worth the non-fossil-fuel-derived electricity.

My sources for most of this are news articles, primarily from the BBC. I really don't want to say more, because some people here are so unabashedly clueless about the issue that it makes my head hurt. Then you'll start arguing mindlessly and... *shudder*.



None.

Apr 17 2010, 5:40 am Jack Post #19

>be faceless void >mfw I have no face

Quote from name:Ciara
Yes, but can we risk another incident like Chernobyl?
Chernobyl was the most retarded accident in the history of retarded accidents. It won't happen again.

Nuclear power is the safest of all power sources except wind and solar power, which are inefficient.



Red classic.

"In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them."

Apr 17 2010, 5:53 am poison_us Post #20

Back* from the grave

Aristocrat, that's a neat little game. Almost didn't play because the beginning was so slow, plus the graphics looked cheap. I lol'd at the cheat code, too.

And of course, power of choice = nuclear. Just had to defend it well (safety :O)





Options
Pages: 1 2 3 >
  Back to forum
Please log in to reply to this topic or to report it.
Members in this topic: None.
[10:18 pm]
Ultraviolet -- I saw an Impossible map made by you being hosted on bnet last night
[10:17 pm]
Ultraviolet -- wb payne
[09:58 pm]
payne -- ha! this site still exists :O
[08:00 pm]
Wing Zero -- NudeRaider
NudeRaider shouted: nobody reads readme's btw
Ironic tbh
[06:49 pm]
MTiger156 -- "Old" is not the correct term, it's "Classic" :cool:
[03:32 pm]
UEDCommander -- That doesn't mean I will not make them read it through and through
[03:28 pm]
ProtoTank -- Is there a weekly get-together where folks play maps on old SC1:BroodWar?
[03:28 pm]
UEDCommander -- NudeRaider
NudeRaider shouted: nobody reads readme's btw
Im aware
[01:41 pm]
IlyaSnopchenko -- FaRTy1billion
FaRTy1billion shouted: there's been tons of random bugs/errors in SC:R lately, especially with strings
So sad, too bad
[01:18 pm]
O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- there's been tons of random bugs/errors in SC:R lately, especially with strings
Please log in to shout.


Members Online: Roy, KrayZee, RdeRenato