Thread: Nuclear Power

Fusing two would make a helium, because then they wouldn't be hydrogen anymore. Besides, hydrogen in its natural state IS H2. (Add the subscript. Whatever.) Hydrogen can't exist as an H wandering around because... I think it's a free radical then, and it's screwy.

Originally Posted by DarkRamza

Well maybe it because im been raised in Québec, where we use mainly Water for our energy ressources, but i think that renewable ressources are the best solutions that we have now. With our water we don't polute one bit , the only backdraw is that sometime we need to immerge some territories (no one lives in thoses territories) so sometime we drown some littles forests.

Hate to break it to you, but pretty much all power plants use water to generate electricity. Coal, Oil, Nuclear, they just evaporate water and use that steam to turn the turbines.

Plus, submerging entire areas is a form of pollution, in some ways you could say more devastating than the byproducts of a coal or oil plant...

Originally Posted by Digital_Eon

Well, Shautieh's French and the French love nuclear power. =P After years of having to argue for nuclear power in model UNs, I have to say I support nuclear power - it's a good source of energy that can be used now, and reduce emissions. I'm sure there's a solution to nuclear waste, and that's still a better alternative than heating the world and causing the endangerment of animal, plant and human populations. It's being used in many countries now, too~

I hate the way teachers force kids to take certain sides in debates. Quite often the kid has to look for all the good points, while they ignore the other side of the argument. The kid then comes to believe in the cause, not because of his/her own free will, but because their impressionable young mind has been force fed ideas, so now that kids opinion has been chosen by the teacher, left to his/her own devices, s/he may have formed a different opinion.
For example, I was made to argue for dropping the two atomic bombs on Japan, I was made to believe that they were necesary for ending the war. These day I hate nuclear weapons, I'm not sure if I do agree with dropping the bombs anymore. OK so maybe they shocked Japan into surrendering, but wouldn't it have been better to drop the bombs on military targets instead of civilian only cities, hell imagine the carnage it would of caused if the bombs were dropped on a city as densly populated as Tokyo.
Anyway, thats my 2 pence.

I'm for nuclear power BTW.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Jakko

you could say more devastating than the byproducts of a coal or oil plant...

No, just no.

EDIT2:

Originally Posted by Animagus10

is that even possible? wouldn't fusing two hydrogen atoms just make it
H2? lolz haven't taken chem in a long time so i have no idea as well! XD

No, for a start they are using two different isotopes of hydrogen (H2 and H3), when they are fused tgether, they form an isotope of helium (that rapidly decays back to hydrogen) and emits a neutron and energy.

i don't know how it works in Quebec, but at least submerging areas from time to time limits the pollution to one specific area, and that is important because the reason why coal and oil are a pain is because the pollution
pollutes a much wider area...

Nuclear wastes are a pain too, but i think it's fission is still worth it until we master fusion (and then we should stop fission plants asap )


speaking of water, there are some really interesting clean projects like this : http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/2520.cfm


@DE : lots of French people are against nuclear power (even though (or maybe more accurately because) 80% of our energy comes from nuclear plants)

Originally Posted by shautieh

...Nuclear wastes are a pain too...

true. if researchers could find a way to somehow hasten the decay of the radioactive waste, we wouldn't have to store it under the yucca mtns in nevada.

Originally Posted by 98abaile

I hate the way teachers force kids to take certain sides in debates. Quite often the kid has to look for all the good points, while they ignore the other side of the argument. The kid then comes to believe in the cause, not because of his/her own free will, but because their impressionable young mind has been force fed ideas, so now that kids opinion has been chosen by the teacher, left to his/her own devices, s/he may have formed a different opinion.

It was voluntary... it just wasn't voluntary to be France. But whatever. :3 I didn't really have an opinion on nuclear power before, except slight support, but after that - okay, and a few arguments in debates for Ontario nuclear plants - I support them.

I'm neutral. I neither hate it nor love it. If it's there, then it is there and if it isn't, than it isn't.

I don't care, I don't not care. I don't know what I'm talking about, I don't not know what I'm talking about.

I'm confused, I'm really confused.

I mean seriously, most of our energy is spent on keeping useless crap generated. I mean, 90+" plasma tvs? Do you really need a tv that sucks in so much power? And don't get me started on cars...

Okay good, no one got me started.

Actually the best way to get rid of nuclear waste is to store it.
After about 100-50 years, it's now safe to handle since the most energetic parts have decayed, and the long-term radiants can be easily handled and resused. In fact, you get some DAMN useful exotic compounds after having let witches brew of chemicals be exposed to hard-rad for a century.

Another way is to actually store a large amount of the waste together, that way it chain-reacts [You'd need an impressive cryogenic cooling system though, otherwise you can say hello to Mr. Meltdown] and rapidly decays.


Practical fusion is the fusing of a Tritium and Deuterium hydrogen nuclei. [Since they will be stripped of their electrons as they're turned into a postively charged plasma] Directly trying to fuse single hydrogen nuclei would require conditions that are simply not possible with human technology.


And, uh... there was more I was gonna say, but I forgets. >_>

Okay , what i meant by saying that our powerplants use water , i meant that the only thing it use it water. No Coal , No Nuclear product.

The river goes in a barrage that containt an certain amounts of tubines ,who pushed by the speed of the water comming from the river and it pressure, making the turbine spinning and use this energy to make electricity.

These are called DAMS, and they have LARGE side-affects.
Most of them nastier than the general public is aware of.

Firstly – You would have to drown a bowl shaped area a few dozen to hundred square kilometers in size. This is often inhabited.

Secondly – More often than not this daming also requires banks to be made along the rivers length to keep it from flooding. As the Mississippi shows – BAD IDEA.

Thirdly – The entire downstream length of the river is slowed, and there is now a large impassable concrete structure cutting off ecosystems that relied on passage of the river.