Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?
Also Charles and Monty, please no insults, treat all responses with respect.
LOL ;)
Oh, and that's not me writing. That's an imaginary monologue by Charles. So, he's actually a pro-horse agitator. Imaginary agitator to be precise and no insult given. ;)
(edited)
Oh, and that's not me writing. That's an imaginary monologue by Charles. So, he's actually a pro-horse agitator. Imaginary agitator to be precise and no insult given. ;)
(edited)
I'm a what ... pro-horse agitator? :P
So we can safely conclude that all the nuclear-haters are like that since they haven't been thrown enough times in a pile of poo.
Topic solved.
Closing the thread
Topic solved.
Closing the thread
Anyway, I am pro-nuclear plant, but i just showed up to say treat each other with respect.
I will stop spamming.
thanks!
I will stop spamming.
thanks!
man is too stupid to manage a nuclear power plant.it's better if we find another way!
we can produce hydrogen from sun and water.the process is like photosintesis!hydrogen is the future.
we can produce hydrogen from sun and water.the process is like photosintesis!hydrogen is the future.
i saw a doc about Chernobyl yesterday, and it was incredible to see the videos filming the first firemen who went there , without protection, it was horrible how this men died.
nuclear power imo NO, is too dangerous, for me best option is first no to build more NP and second the nuclear plants who are alive, well let them alive but start looking for another ways to obtain energy so this NP alive can be closed in some years.
The risk is just to high, from an economic point of view the risk to fxck up a whole country dosent fit with the benefit of having "cheaper energy" , plus the fact that solar energy is every year cheaper, at least in south of europe.
nuclear power imo NO, is too dangerous, for me best option is first no to build more NP and second the nuclear plants who are alive, well let them alive but start looking for another ways to obtain energy so this NP alive can be closed in some years.
The risk is just to high, from an economic point of view the risk to fxck up a whole country dosent fit with the benefit of having "cheaper energy" , plus the fact that solar energy is every year cheaper, at least in south of europe.
Exciting. :)
As far as I've understood, the main problem (at least regarding CO2) with hydrogen fuel cells has always been, that the production of pure hydrogen to fuel the system emits so much CO2, that it's got very little if any effect compared to traditional fossil fuels. So if it was possible to "split" water into hydrogen and oxygen using nothing but sunlight and a catalyst (the "leaf"), it should have a much bigger effect. At least from my layman point of view.
Of course there would still be matters needed to be met. For example it would have to be made inexpensive. As would the fuel cells needed to turn hydrogen into electricity. But at least it's promising and should be worth following.
As far as I've understood, the main problem (at least regarding CO2) with hydrogen fuel cells has always been, that the production of pure hydrogen to fuel the system emits so much CO2, that it's got very little if any effect compared to traditional fossil fuels. So if it was possible to "split" water into hydrogen and oxygen using nothing but sunlight and a catalyst (the "leaf"), it should have a much bigger effect. At least from my layman point of view.
Of course there would still be matters needed to be met. For example it would have to be made inexpensive. As would the fuel cells needed to turn hydrogen into electricity. But at least it's promising and should be worth following.
ok, but nobody here give real cost of investment of such hydro/geo and other PP, which can make same amount of energy.
Everybody here know how big financial and economic problems has the whole world, so nobody will invest/spend more than is necessary and I can not believe (you can correct my opinion) that the other PP are not much more expensive (at least till the time when they will be in serial/mass production).
I agree with valenciano, just as I said before.. in this century it is fairy-tale, we need nuclear PP not because it is the best what world can have, just because it is very suitable in short economics view (so not talking about waste)
So I agree, but I can not imagine how you would like to make this change in real world, in nowadays.
(edited)
Everybody here know how big financial and economic problems has the whole world, so nobody will invest/spend more than is necessary and I can not believe (you can correct my opinion) that the other PP are not much more expensive (at least till the time when they will be in serial/mass production).
I agree with valenciano, just as I said before.. in this century it is fairy-tale, we need nuclear PP not because it is the best what world can have, just because it is very suitable in short economics view (so not talking about waste)
So I agree, but I can not imagine how you would like to make this change in real world, in nowadays.
(edited)
As I told here before, my country have not to such epic problems like Greece, Irish or Portuguese and we have quite modern PP (on is older and rebuild, second is new, they have all criteria of safety) so we have for many year in future cheat electricity. No investment cost, just operating cost.
And now how you can to my country build more wind, solar, geo or other PP, who will give us some millions of euros ??? This is not real, I am talking along with pro-nuclear orientation just about this.
I know that nuclear energy has big risk and so... but answer me how you can make change .
And now how you can to my country build more wind, solar, geo or other PP, who will give us some millions of euros ??? This is not real, I am talking along with pro-nuclear orientation just about this.
I know that nuclear energy has big risk and so... but answer me how you can make change .
The "leaf project" belongs to the future, for sure, but it's still exciting news when new discoveries are made. Commercializing them and making the discoveries inexpensive and practical is the big challenge. If it'll happen, only time can tell.
So it should come as no surprise, that I agree, that for now we must focus on what solutions are at hand. Dreaming is for dreamers, and nuclear power is for today's demands. And there are still a lot of improvements and major achievements to be made in nuclear power production, so it's quite possible, that it's for the future's demands also. It would be extremely short sightet not to continue development into fusion power - just to make an example.
So it should come as no surprise, that I agree, that for now we must focus on what solutions are at hand. Dreaming is for dreamers, and nuclear power is for today's demands. And there are still a lot of improvements and major achievements to be made in nuclear power production, so it's quite possible, that it's for the future's demands also. It would be extremely short sightet not to continue development into fusion power - just to make an example.
and one more thing... if some country is able to build for example cheap wave or geo PP (cheap because of "mass" production") do you think that this country will just help and give this technology to poor countries ? Of course not ! So even if Europe or US make cleaner PP in the future, the rest of world would try to make just nuclear PP maybe...
Fortunately technology (patents) doesn't belong to countries, but to corporations or individuals. And they really haven't got a lot of reasons in holding back tecnology, if it's profitable. Profitability is the key if we want to fight CO2 emissions. That is why I support realistic solutions based on well tested technology on urgent issues - and not possible future maybe-if-not-and-so-forth scenarios.
Profitability is a point I think a lot of people are missing. There's a lot of conspiracy theories out there about corporations, governments, Illuminati and whatever holding back or even hiding miracle technology from the public, when in fact it's always about the lack of profitability. If a technology is clever and inexpensive enough, it'd be too huge a goldmine for anyone to sit on. To be a first mover in the future's power supply systems would be the dream of anyone interrested in making huge wads of cash in decades to come.
(edited)
Profitability is a point I think a lot of people are missing. There's a lot of conspiracy theories out there about corporations, governments, Illuminati and whatever holding back or even hiding miracle technology from the public, when in fact it's always about the lack of profitability. If a technology is clever and inexpensive enough, it'd be too huge a goldmine for anyone to sit on. To be a first mover in the future's power supply systems would be the dream of anyone interrested in making huge wads of cash in decades to come.
(edited)
Fortunately technology (patents) doesn't belong to countries, but to corporations or individuals. And they really haven't got a lot of reasons in holding back tecnology, if it's profitable.
Fortunately?
Unfortunately..
informations that belong to someone can't be used free..
And WHO has this patent?
who NEED to hold back tecnology UNTIL it become MORE PROFITABLE than what they have now..
Profitability is a point I think a lot of people are missing.
No it's the point.
Energy must NOT be ruled by profit rules..
Energy must be seen as a uman right.
Does not matter the cost..
Someone think water or air is something that can be sold? no..
Do you think that if it cost too muche to bring air to someone he can stay without? no..
the same must be for water, energy, information, education, sanity..
As I said a lot of pages before this is only a political question, that our incomplete and apparent democracies (where there's democracy..) has not the strenght to face.
Fortunately?
Unfortunately..
informations that belong to someone can't be used free..
And WHO has this patent?
who NEED to hold back tecnology UNTIL it become MORE PROFITABLE than what they have now..
Profitability is a point I think a lot of people are missing.
No it's the point.
Energy must NOT be ruled by profit rules..
Energy must be seen as a uman right.
Does not matter the cost..
Someone think water or air is something that can be sold? no..
Do you think that if it cost too muche to bring air to someone he can stay without? no..
the same must be for water, energy, information, education, sanity..
As I said a lot of pages before this is only a political question, that our incomplete and apparent democracies (where there's democracy..) has not the strenght to face.
Oh, come on...
The prize doesn't matter at all? Who's going to pay for it all? Maybe you yourself is prepared to spend whatever the prize may be, but I think you'll find a hard time convincing everybody to do the same.
At least you'll have a hard time convincing people in lesser developed countries. They can't afford the luxury to spend whatever on their essential energy production. And that would in turn force the rest of us to think along the same lines. It would be devastating for our own prosperity to not regard the cost of energy.
The prize doesn't matter at all? Who's going to pay for it all? Maybe you yourself is prepared to spend whatever the prize may be, but I think you'll find a hard time convincing everybody to do the same.
At least you'll have a hard time convincing people in lesser developed countries. They can't afford the luxury to spend whatever on their essential energy production. And that would in turn force the rest of us to think along the same lines. It would be devastating for our own prosperity to not regard the cost of energy.