+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 51

Thread: Does Nuclear Power Carry An Acceptable Risk?

  1. #11
    Join Date: Mar 2008

    Location: Galashiels

    Posts: 13,691
    I'm inthescottishmafia.

    Default

    Fusion is clean, if it can be made to work on an industrial scale.
    “Music has always been a matter of energy to me, a question of fuel. Sentimental people call it inspiration, but what they really mean is fuel. I have always needed fuel. I am a serious consumer. On some nights I still believe that a car with the gas needle on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio”

    Hunter S Thompson

  2. #12
    Join Date: Feb 2008

    Location: Sunny (occasionally) Devon

    Posts: 1,716
    I'm Shane.

    Default

    Just supposing there was a type of nuclear reactor that was physically incapable of melting down or running away, produced waste that only needed to be stored for seventeen years, plus a very small amount that needed to be stored for three hundred years, that didn’t require the impossible temperatures and problems of fusion, and couldn’t produce weapon material even if you wanted it to?

    Well there is, and it’s only because of that last feature that you’ve never heard of it and it’s been ignored since the 50s.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoriu..._nuclear_power
    Time flies like an arrow.
    Fruit flies like a banana.

  3. #13
    Join Date: Mar 2008

    Location: Galashiels

    Posts: 13,691
    I'm inthescottishmafia.

    Default

    Yes read an article on that recently, looks interesting.
    “Music has always been a matter of energy to me, a question of fuel. Sentimental people call it inspiration, but what they really mean is fuel. I have always needed fuel. I am a serious consumer. On some nights I still believe that a car with the gas needle on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio”

    Hunter S Thompson

  4. #14
    Join Date: Apr 2017

    Location: Cheshire UK

    Posts: 843
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Yes thats interesting Shane and I will read up on that

  5. #15
    Join Date: Apr 2012

    Location: N E Kent

    Posts: 51,625
    I'm Geoff.

    Default

    Anybody aware of the ZETA fusion project from the fifties? That showed some promise, but was sidelined as has been most fusion research.

    Never mind 'cold fusion', which also had potential and never seems to get talked about now.
    It is impossible for anything digital to sound analogue, because it isn't analogue!

  6. #16
    Join Date: Apr 2017

    Location: Cheshire UK

    Posts: 843
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jandl100 View Post
    The elephant in this particular room that hasn't been mentioned is population growth.
    There are simply more of us than the planet can sustain. In terms of food production and energy needs etc.
    I can't properly recall, and I can't be bothered to look it up at the moment!, but I think a sustainable population for our little blue dot is about 2 billion.
    We are currently heading for 10.

    We either limit ourselves and stop behaving like demented rabbits or "Nature" will do it for us.
    Yes absolutely and this underlies it all. They have no coherent policy on transport never mind worldwide population growth. Then again how do you control it? I remember people going absolutely beserk when I suggested no more than two children for example.

    The planet can not support this level of population. I dont feel a direct connection with land that is easily supporting me.
    I feel it in my bones that the illuminati want a world war or plague to keep it down but I am playing Deus Ex at the moment

  7. #17
    Join Date: Apr 2017

    Location: Cheshire UK

    Posts: 843
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alphaGT View Post
    The whole reason nuclear power plants were created was to make the bomb grade uranium the government’s needed for their nuclear arsenals. The first nuclear bomb was made of uranium, and the government built a plant to filter out the 238 they needed. A huge monstrous facility in Tennessee that cost a billion dollars in the 1940’s that employed thousands of people, just to make enough uranium to make one bomb. And it took over 6 months to make enough for the one bomb. The next thing you know, they are selling the public on this wonderful clean power of the future. Pushing the cost of making the bomb grade uranium off on the public! Nuclear power is the most expensive electricity ever made, and the waste material is the worst pollutant ever made. Not to mention the cost of keeping it out of the wrong hands. And as mentioned, accidents are real disasters! Almost impossible to recover from. If the money spent on nuclear research had been spent on hydrogen fuel cells or solar and wind power, perhaps those sciences would be up to par to compete with fossil fuels and nuclear power by now? How much of the research in these fields has been bought up and hidden by the oil companies?

    If someone invented a generator that ran on water that could power the average home and car, and was affordable, it would cause wars and famine and possibly the end of the world! For attempting to change the status quo, all the people in the Middle East who’s income revolves around the sale of oil, the large part of the world’s money invested in these fossil fuel markets, stock markets would crash, entire regions would starve, wars would break out world wide. And chances are someone in a black suit would come around and kill the inventor before it got out of hand. Maybe it’s already happened?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Yes and this is why I get upset because its all linked in with nuclear weapons and energy policies which keep the power base and greedy noses in the trough.

    I agree with you that there are clearly vested and twisted interests at work.

  8. #18
    Join Date: Apr 2012

    Location: N E Kent

    Posts: 51,625
    I'm Geoff.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Minstrel SE View Post
    I remember people going absolutely beserk when I suggested no more than two children for example
    It's a point of view. One with which I don't necessarily disagree. Everybody is entitled to think how they wish.

    We could really stir things up by talking about population reduction or Eugenics. I have read Eysenck you know. Not that I'm advocating anything.
    It is impossible for anything digital to sound analogue, because it isn't analogue!

  9. #19
    Join Date: Feb 2013

    Location: Switerland

    Posts: 1,199
    I'm rupert.

    Default

    Q: Does Nuclear Power Carry An Acceptable Risk?

    A: You'll know when it blows up near you.

  10. #20
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: gone

    Posts: 11,519
    I'm gone.

    Default

    Acceptable risk.

    I feel sure that far more people have died as a result of the coal mining industry than nuclear power.
    Why is that more acceptable?
    .

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •