Should we switch to alternative sources of energy?

[Chris7He]

You're gonna quit this debate because you are losing. I never said that a nuclear disaster was not going to happen, but if we apply the concepts that we apply to the production and storage of nuclear weapons we should not have a disaster.

*Sigh* no I am not losing I am bored.
Look here:

1. Nuclear energy is the most efficient but the most dangerous.

2. Fuel is rare and will run out by 2060 if we use nuclear on a regular basis.

3. Removing waste is extremely difficult because it can do a lot of damage to the biosphere, and it takes ages fro it to lose radioactivity and the waste ground can't be in a lplace where there is geological activity.

4. You may claim that a meltdown isn't going to happen but what happens if it does? You can't be certain that your rules will be enough or that people will follow them. If there is a meltdown then a very large area will be pretty much completely useless.

5. If there is a meltdown how do you know if the radioactivity reaches another nuclear station there won't be a chain reaction of meltdowns? The fact is we don't know enough about nuclear energy.


6.You know what happened in Chernobyl. You know what happened in Nagaska and Hiroshimo. The effects are still being felt today and will be felt for a long time.

7. The risk of a meltdown OR waste being exposed to the biosphere is too much. If it does happen it will haunt the future generations for a logn time and I am against that.

8.As you see nuclear energy is not safe or long-term so I do not believe it is the way to go. There are plenty of other energy sources which are renewable(and so long-term) and safe.

9. And with that, child/troll I bid you goodbye

You forgot to tackle nuclear fusion and cold fusion. The system set up keeps nuclear meltdowns from occurring as long as we stay faithful to it. It's more up to human error.

[Iliad]

You're gonna quit this debate because you are losing. I never said that a nuclear disaster was not going to happen, but if we apply the concepts that we apply to the production and storage of nuclear weapons we should not have a disaster.

*Sigh* no I am not losing I am bored.
Look here:

1. Nuclear energy is the most efficient but the most dangerous.

2. Fuel is rare and will run out by 2060 if we use nuclear on a regular basis.

3. Removing waste is extremely difficult because it can do a lot of damage to the biosphere, and it takes ages fro it to lose radioactivity and the waste ground can't be in a lplace where there is geological activity.

4. You may claim that a meltdown isn't going to happen but what happens if it does? You can't be certain that your rules will be enough or that people will follow them. If there is a meltdown then a very large area will be pretty much completely useless.

5. If there is a meltdown how do you know if the radioactivity reaches another nuclear station there won't be a chain reaction of meltdowns? The fact is we don't know enough about nuclear energy.


6.You know what happened in Chernobyl. You know what happened in Nagaska and Hiroshimo. The effects are still being felt today and will be felt for a long time.

7. The risk of a meltdown OR waste being exposed to the biosphere is too much. If it does happen it will haunt the future generations for a logn time and I am against that.

8.As you see nuclear energy is not safe or long-term so I do not believe it is the way to go. There are plenty of other energy sources which are renewable(and so long-term) and safe.

9. And with that, child/troll I bid you goodbye

You forgot to tackle nuclear fusion and cold fusion. The system set up keeps nuclear meltdowns from occurring as long as we stay faithful to it. It's more up to human error.

And I dont' think I want to risk a site to be radioactive for a really long time if human error is involved. That's the point the risk is too high, the effect is too high and too long, and this isn't even long-term anyway


And you have backtracked way too much in this debate

[Chris7He]

What do you mean? I say that nuclear power would be the most practical for the future.

[Iliad]

What do you mean? I say that nuclear power would be the most practical for the future.

how is it? It's not renewable(and so not long term) and the waste is too dangerous and it is too dangerous

[Guiscard]

they still use almost ten nuclear power plants.

What, like nine?

[Chris7He]

What do you mean? I say that nuclear power would be the most practical for the future.

how is it? It's not renewable(and so not long term) and the waste is too dangerous and it is too dangerous

Well... It may not be renewable, but it can be found throughout the universe. I have changed my mind to hydrogen (for the near-future) and solar for now. Nice debating.

[Neutrino]

I'm sure that a nuclear fuel cycle (in which te waste is used as fuel) will work. Low level waste can simply be discharged into the environment without causing much damage.

Wait, wait, wait.
You want to take a fission reactor into orbit, cart all the materials and personel that you need to run the reactor up there as well, then return the spent fuel back to Earth. Why?
By returning the fuel you essentially removed the purpose of the reactor's existence. Hell, if the thing blows up, you're still going to have a lot of fissile uranium spread across your sky. How is this possibly an improvement?

[Chris7He]

I'm sure that a nuclear fuel cycle (in which te waste is used as fuel) will work. Low level waste can simply be discharged into the environment without causing much damage.

Wait, wait, wait.
You want to take a fission reactor into orbit, cart all the materials and personel that you need to run the reactor up there as well, then return the spent fuel back to Earth. Why?
By returning the fuel you essentially removed the purpose of the reactor's existence. Hell, if the thing blows up, you're still going to have a lot of fissile uranium spread across your sky. How is this possibly an improvement?

I said SPACE not orbit. That could mean anywhere in the fucking universe. You could build one on the moon.

[Iliad]

What do you mean? I say that nuclear power would be the most practical for the future.

how is it? It's not renewable(and so not long term) and the waste is too dangerous and it is too dangerous

Well... It may not be renewable, but it can be found throughout the universe. I have changed my mind to hydrogen (for the near-future) and solar for now. Nice debating.

you are talking way beyone our technology. We can't build a nuclear station on the moon, we can't go to space and looks for it there

[Chris7He]

What do you mean? I say that nuclear power would be the most practical for the future.

how is it? It's not renewable(and so not long term) and the waste is too dangerous and it is too dangerous

Well... It may not be renewable, but it can be found throughout the universe. I have changed my mind to hydrogen (for the near-future) and solar for now. Nice debating.

you are talking way beyone our technology. We can't build a nuclear station on the moon, we can't go to space and looks for it there

I was just proving a point. Why not?

[unriggable]

Solar. Half the world faces the sun at any given time.

[Chris7He]

Solar. Half the world faces the sun at any given time.

I am convinced. I agree.

[Iliad]

What do you mean? I say that nuclear power would be the most practical for the future.

how is it? It's not renewable(and so not long term) and the waste is too dangerous and it is too dangerous

Well... It may not be renewable, but it can be found throughout the universe. I have changed my mind to hydrogen (for the near-future) and solar for now. Nice debating.

you are talking way beyone our technology. We can't build a nuclear station on the moon, we can't go to space and looks for it there

I was just proving a point. Why not?

no you weren't. Making unbelievable claims whcih only work if our technology is way beyond what it is now is not proof

[Chris7He]

What do you mean? I say that nuclear power would be the most practical for the future.

how is it? It's not renewable(and so not long term) and the waste is too dangerous and it is too dangerous

Well... It may not be renewable, but it can be found throughout the universe. I have changed my mind to hydrogen (for the near-future) and solar for now. Nice debating.

you are talking way beyone our technology. We can't build a nuclear station on the moon, we can't go to space and looks for it there

I was just proving a point. Why not?

no you weren't. Making unbelievable claims whcih only work if our technology is way beyond what it is now is not proof

Our technology can actually achieve those goals, but it would be expensive and inefficient. Therefore I am proving a point. Our technology is pretty advanced and is growing at an astronomical rate.

[samuelchin1996]

I chose solar because I felt it is the most practical.

[unriggable]

I chose solar because I felt it is the most practical.

And I feel like I should agree with you.

[Phil1580]

Once the government gets out of bed with the billion dollar oil companies, then maybe we can talk about switching to an energy source that doesnt pollute & that no wars are fought over....

just my two cents.

[unriggable]

Once the government gets out of bed with the billion dollar oil companies, then maybe we can talk about switching to an energy source that doesnt pollute & that no wars are fought over....

just my two cents.

This is OUR wind power area!

[InkL0sed]

chris, i hate to attack you more cause you are definitely getting a lot of undeserved shit, but I do have to ask: isn't fusion... not possible? I mean, yeah, you get tons of energy from it, but you have to go to unreasonable temperatures to create it.

[radiojake]

I have two questions, and I'm not sure of the answers myself, but it's an interesting thought.

How much energy does the planet in its entirety use every year?

and how much energy do we receive from the sun every year?

As soon as the first answer is bigger than the 2nd answer, it will the beginning of the end of power and the 'industrial' age as we know it.

Which then raises the third question, are we ALREADY using more energy than we receive from the sun?


Also, earlier in the thread someone mentioned about how all rivers should be a dammed (though most already are) - I think that's pretty fucked. Rivers have a purpose that has nothing to do with humans exploiting them. They have their own eco-systems that are destroyed because humans are arrogant enough to think their 'needs' are more important than the entire natural world. Come to think about it, it's not just rivers that we f*ck up in search of our 'needs' - "HEY WE NEED JOBS, WE MUST CUT DOWN THESE TREES FOR WOOD CHIPS OTHERWISE I WON'T GET A PAY CHECK"

News flash, f*ck face, no jobs on a dead planet

[samuelchin1996]

the 2nd ans is about 9000 times more than the first.

[unriggable]

chris, i hate to attack you more cause you are definitely getting a lot of undeserved shit, but I do have to ask: isn't fusion... not possible? I mean, yeah, you get tons of energy from it, but you have to go to unreasonable temperatures to create it.

Definitely true. For the atomic particles to rearrange we'd have to see temperatures and pressures similar to those of the sun.

[Neutrino]

I said SPACE not orbit. That could mean anywhere in the fucking universe. You could build one on the moon.

If you've got a colony on the Moon that requires a nuclear pile, why would you bother to transport one there? You can get far more energy for far less thermonuclear explosions from a few square k's of solar cells.

[Neutrino]

chris, i hate to attack you more cause you are definitely getting a lot of undeserved shit, but I do have to ask: isn't fusion... not possible? I mean, yeah, you get tons of energy from it, but you have to go to unreasonable temperatures to create it.

Fusion is exceedingly possible (see: stars). What it isn't is easy.
That's why throwing some money in the direction of Cold Fusion might not be too bad an idea.

[samuelchin1996]

Anyways, Idunno if someone already said that, but all forms of energy used to be solar.