Home >> World-issues >> Nuclear Power? For or against?
12.02.2008, 08:15 quote
It looks like the last generation of plants in the UK are about to be decommissioned within the next 15 years. Some are going to be replaced by coal and gas propelled turbines while some will be in the form of renewables.
Regardless of what side of the argument you are on we are going to be in a shortage if we don't use nuclear so unless we all drive the Toyota Prius we wont be posting on boards in the near future.
13.02.2008, 21:37 quote
Are you suggesting that nuclear powered cars are the way forward?
Brilliant! My next car will be a DeLorean with a flux capacitor!
13.02.2008, 21:39 quote
| riojalibre wrote: |
| Are you suggesting that nuclear powered cars are the way forward?
Brilliant! My next car will be a DeLorean with a flux capacitor! |
Now you're talkin' ... that car is way past cool
13.02.2008, 21:45 quote
Just need to get some fuel from the Libyans...wonder if they'll give me Tesco clubcard points?
13.02.2008, 22:30 quote
| riojalibre wrote: |
| Just need to get some fuel from the Libyans...wonder if they'll give me Tesco clubcard points? |
16.02.2008, 11:49 quote
I'm for it - it's a lot more easier to use than other forms of fuel. The only problem is overconcermed people(in case of another Chenobyl), the skilled workers situation and the waste.
16.02.2008, 13:01 quote
Nuclear power might just work, but with the amount of nutty drivers about Id wouldn't wanna be in the same county when one crashes into a railing or something.
10.04.2008, 02:59 quote
France's electricity is 80% nuclear,it's safer than any other way,I'm all for using nuclear power.
10.04.2008, 15:00 quote
Yep, we should have loads of nuclear plants, that way we'll have the opportunity to produce loads of nuclear bombs, and be ready for when it all kicks off!
Plus we get some electricity as a by-product.
10.04.2008, 22:18 quote
Well Nuclear power in the short term means Fission reactors, which have their problems but considering where we'd get the supplies of Uranium(US, Canada, Australia), its far better than gas (Russia, the middle east, Malaysia).
The reactors would be under our control and even if we where cut off from Uranium supplies the reactors would still run for years on the existing fuel, giving us time to find new answers.
Cleaner than coal, and storage of the waste is a known quantity compared with the risks of carbon capture and deep sea storage.
Long term Fusion is the key, in fact its the next step as far as the human race is concerned, equivilent to the development of fire in human history.
A curious by product of mastering Fusion is the potential to alter the matter of the existing Fission waste products. Essentialy reducing its half life from thousands to hundreds of years, which makes storage a far easier prospect.
11.04.2008, 15:14 quote
Actually....for those in the know....plasma converters are the way forward.
see here > http://science.howstuffworks.com/plasma-converter.htm
They use up waste products, producing no hazardous waste, and the by products of the process are just harmless solids, and a mix of familiar gases that are easily stored and purified like natural gas
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum





