Thread: Nuclear!

Ok, this one's for you Chimensch.

The whole Nuclear thing has it's pros and cons... we.. big pros and big cons. Which side do you feel the scale weighs towards?

Personally with the disarmament of many countries and the non -proliferation agreement I think the technology has been a benefit to us all as a whole, and hopefully will become moreso.

nuclear power is an idea that i actually like and if the idea would just stay at power it would be fine, but whe you start speaking nuclear another type of "power" comes into play... and weapons are born and my view on that is well.... to use a saying I have heard many times ww1 and ww2 were fought with guns and knives, I dont kow how ww3 is gunna go but i promise ww4 we will be fighting with sticks and stones

Nuclear isn't just one thing, where you can turn fuel processes into weapons processes by flipping a switch.
Fuel breeder reactors are different from weapons material breeders.

Nuclear fuel is the best option that we have right now. Wind, solar, wave, ... energy is something we should investigate. And if solar ever becomes efficient enough, it will be great. But until that time, nuclear is better than anything we have.

Coal plants emit more nuclear waste than nuclear reactors, but noone seems to mind because it doesn't have 'nuclear' in its name.

And with reprocessing of nuclear fuel, combined with modern reactor design, there is only ver little actual waste. But it won't matter because the greenpeace zealots fight against anything that uses nuclear fuel, regardless of facts. It's no different from any other fundamentalist mindset, except they don't blow up stuff.

Well said metalhead!

I may be a tad naieve, but I don't think nuclear weapons will be used again. It's now generally assumed that to do wo would be mutual destruction of the countries involved at the very least. I (once again in my naivete) think we're past the age of world wars for that very reason.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Coal plants emit more nuclear waste than nuclear reactors, but noone seems to mind because it doesn't have 'nuclear' in its name.

Please explain in more detail.

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Please explain in more detail.

Yes please, I haven't heard about this either.

Originally Posted by Nickelking

Well said metalhead!

I may be a tad naieve, but I don't think nuclear weapons will be used again. It's now generally assumed that to do wo would be mutual destruction of the countries involved at the very least. I (once again in my naivete) think we're past the age of world wars for that very reason.

You think that Israel wouldn't like to drop some tiny, little, harmless tactical nukes on Iran?

Originally Posted by Nickelking

Yes please, I haven't heard about this either.

The thing about coal powered plants is that they burn massive amounts of coal, and coal dust gets emited into the atmosphere. A fraction of all carbon is radioactive (which is the basis of carbon dating).

from
Nuclear power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

. Coal-burning plants are particularly noted for producing large amounts of toxic and mildly radioactive ash due to concentrating naturally occurring metals and radioactive material from the coal. Contrary to popular belief, coal power actually results in more radioactive waste being released into the environment than nuclear power. The population effective dose equivalent from radiation from coal plants is 100 times as much as nuclear plants.[58]

It's just a wiki article, but if you google around, you'll find lots more.

Thanks bruno!

Chimensch: according to some declassified documents from the US government Israel has had nukes since 1975, so I don't think they're anxious to drop the bomb on iran or anyone else.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Nuclear isn't just one thing, where you can turn fuel processes into weapons processes by flipping a switch.
Fuel breeder reactors are different from weapons material breeders.

Nuclear fuel is the best option that we have right now. Wind, solar, wave, ... energy is something we should investigate. And if solar ever becomes efficient enough, it will be great. But until that time, nuclear is better than anything we have.

Coal plants emit more nuclear waste than nuclear reactors, but noone seems to mind because it doesn't have 'nuclear' in its name.

And with reprocessing of nuclear fuel, combined with modern reactor design, there is only ver little actual waste. But it won't matter because the greenpeace zealots fight against anything that uses nuclear fuel, regardless of facts. It's no different from any other fundamentalist mindset, except they don't blow up stuff.

I couldn't have said it better. The best option in the future is obviously harnessing nature, but right now the best harness we have is nuclear energy. All the Nimitz carriers use it, so why not cities?