Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61

Thread: Nuclear Power

  1. #21
    Digital_Eon's Avatar
    Digital_Eon is offline Super Moderator Community Builder
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Kya~nada
    Posts
    17,429

    Default

    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.
    ~Digital_Eon~




  2. #22
    Jakko's Avatar
    Jakko is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, US
    Posts
    4,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkRamza View Post
    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...

  3. #23
    98abaile's Avatar
    98abaile is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    An Englishman in a shithole somewhere in Wales.
    Posts
    7,892

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Digital_Eon View Post
    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by Jakko View Post
    you could say more devastating than the byproducts of a coal or oil plant...
    No, just no.

    EDIT2:
    Quote Originally Posted by Animagus10 View Post
    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.

  4. #24
    shautieh's Avatar
    shautieh is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Skipea
    Posts
    5,340

    Default

    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)

  5. #25
    Animagus10 is offline Senior Member Frequent Poster
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shautieh View Post
    ...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.

  6. #26
    Digital_Eon's Avatar
    Digital_Eon is offline Super Moderator Community Builder
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Kya~nada
    Posts
    17,429

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 98abaile View Post
    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.
    ~Digital_Eon~




  7. #27
    ozarugold is offline Senior Member Respected Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    I CAN'T REMEMBER!!!
    Posts
    468

    Default

    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.
    Are you happy? I am happy.

  8. #28
    Ishman is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    above the ecliptic plane
    Posts
    1,999

    Default

    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. >_>

  9. #29
    DarkRamza is offline Junior Member Newbie
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4

    Default

    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.

  10. #30
    Ishman is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    above the ecliptic plane
    Posts
    1,999

    Default

    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.

 

 
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
vBulletin Skin by: ForumThemes.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162