PrometheusMFD Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 Meh, the cosmic dust might just float off into the cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 you just better hope that doesn't happen to our sun, which is why we're so badly turning to solar energy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 5.6 billion years leftAnd solar power is horribly inefficiant.I say we go Nuclear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 assuming you know how old the sun really is. And going nuclear is fine if you know how to store all the waste Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JG. Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 I say go Fusion. It may be har to control and still undebeloped, but it's a fuel for the future. Until we learn to harness it, I say we go Hydro (Energy from waves) or Geothermal (heat from the ground). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 geothermal is still location related, and we are too far away from creating our own Atlantis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 assuming you know how old the sun really is. And going nuclear is fine if you know how to store all the waste Did you know the best part? A nuclear reactor core can use its own waste as fuel, leaving us with nothing but hydrogen and water vapor What you do is use the Hydrogen produced during a Nuclear Reaction to bombard the waste. This gives it similar enough properties to the original Uranium/Plutonium/Einsteinium originally used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 it can't use ALL of its waste as fuel. There has to be some remnants left that's useless to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 Yeah, but what remains is either hydrogen, water vapor, or lumps of carbon. And at a mere 1/16 or less of the original uranium.Non radioactivebiodegradeableeasily burnt like coalI say Nuclear is the way to go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 is that what we're doing with the nuclear waste right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 In all 8% of the power plants we have that are nuclear? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 nuclear probably would be fine if we can just convince the EPA otherwise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Culpa Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 Fact of the matter is, that alternative fuels are more plentiful and don't hurt the environment as much. Simple decision really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 that's EPA's problem. If it hurts the environment at all, it's bad. And we all know there's no such fuel that does NO harm to the environment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Meh, but what determines what harms the environment?Causing global warming? Anything involving reflecting/trapping heat does that (g'bye solar)Changing the landscape? HydroelectricStripping the land? Coal and oil...wait...Nuclear isn't in there. O.M.G.! I guess we should go nuclear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 until nuclear will go on the list of radiation killing the plant and tree life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 But the thing is, Plants absorb more rads from the ultraviolet and ifrared radiation from the sun then a nuclear reactor puts out.Hell, even the rads inside the power plant itself are non-lethal, and can even be beneficiall to the worker's health! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 explain how the radiation helps the worker. Radiation is supposed to be harmful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 Every thing is harmfull if you are exposed to enough of it (hence water poisoning-literaly dieing from too much water in your digestive system)But the small doses of radiation the workers are subject to are in that range of beneficial exposure.The amount of rads a person is exposed to after a 10 year period can eliminate or alter enough cancerous cells to stave death for at least 20 years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 interesting. I thought it helps in the toxin build up every time a cell divides (which is the reason why we die, too much toxin and the cell dies) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 Meh, that toobut our cells can get rid of that toxin themselves (due to osmosis)... ok, technically the cell isn't actually doing any work, but you know what I meanAnd when a cell divides, the area that carries the wastes and stuff is burst open and the contents spill out outside of the cell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 that's true. Look the point is one reason our avg life expectancy isn't as high as it should be is because of radiation fallout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 ..........Bwa ha ha ha!Sorry sorryI jsut burst out laughing when anyone outside of Japan in 1945 complains about being affected by falloutHa ha ha ha ha!OkOkI'm betterSorry about that. Ehem anyway, fallout dissipates quickly and is deteriorated by the sun, which still technically gives us more radiationAnd you don't get fallout from a nuclear power plantjust steam and hydrogen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragnarok1945 Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 you seem to forget about the nuclear weapon testing program in Nevada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 Meh, remote area and 63 point whatever years agono fallout left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.