So i just did a debate on weather or not nuclear energy should be funded directly by the US federal government. I won the debate in case someone was wondering. Anyways i was wondering what the forums thought about nuclear energy and if the federal government should fund it. I am for it because if we can figure out something to do with the nuclear waste then we should be able to create tons of clean energy. discuss
So i just did a debate on weather or not nuclear energy should be funded directly by the US federal government. I won the debate in case someone was wondering. Anyways i was wondering what the forums thought about nuclear energy and if the federal government should fund it. I am for it because if we can figure out something to do with the nuclear waste then we should be able to create tons of clean energy. discuss
Yes, not only should we fund new nuclear fission reactors, we should put more money to development of nuclear fusion reactors.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
join off topic IRC at #otter on esper.net, there is cake*
*there may or may not be cake
Yes, not only should we fund new nuclear fission reactors, we should put more money to development of nuclear fusion reactors.
Agreed
Nuclear energy may be dangerous, but it creates a lot of energy. Nuclear Fusion would be phenomenal when it's discovered how to create it, except when used in bombs.
As someone who's written an 8-page college paper about the subject, yes, it definitely should be funded by the government. It's cheaper in the long run and much safer than other means of powering, such as coal power plants. Furthermore, with actual funding we could have the tehcnology to construct generation 4 NPPs within the next decade. Generation 4 plants cannot melt down. Currently, Japan is the leader in Nuclear Power Plant tehcnology and will likely be the first to achieve a generation 4 reactor. Furthermore, France is almost entirely powered by nuclear power and it's been a massive benefit to them.
The US should expand their entire energy system, and have a pretty balanced amount of power from things like windmills, solar power, nuclear power, fossil fuels, etc, etc. Any nation that relies largely on one form of energy isn't a balanced nation. If you rely solely on one type of energy, than that leaves that system open for many types of holes later on. I voted yes, in any case.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...But don’t worry, you’re not alone, there are many men like you left in the world, and some of them even used to be your friends. After all, this is America, and we only kill our friends." - Immortal Technique
If one changes the country to sweden, then yes.
We live in a upside-down country I tell you. First it's prohibited by law to research nuclear power because it's considered dangerous! DUH! that's why one should continue researching, to make it safer!! and second, we are taking down our reactors, replacing them with some wind-crap that's considered better for the environment...yeah, right, chopping up thousands of birds and bats is WAAY better :sad.gif: nah, I say more nuclear energy!
Some people are just crazy. I also hear Russia or someone is thinking about making nuclear energy illegal as well
So you would rather have a resource consuming way of making energy rather than a "green" way of making energy, just because of a few birds?
Nuclear energy is green energy the only undesirable by product is nuclear waste which if we research enough can be taken care of or if were lucky be used for something beneficial. And its not just a few birds its thousands
So you would rather have a resource consuming way of making energy rather than a "green" way of making energy, just because of a few birds?
oh wow, the wind. Yea, great source of energy.[/sarcasm] Lets just create the sun in a box! Which we plan on completing in 2018ish if ITER is on schedule.
And what creates wind? the sun, so clearly recreating the sun is the best source of energy.
oh wow, the wind. Yea, great source of energy.[/sarcasm] Lets just create the sun in a box! Which we plan on completing in 2018ish if ITER is on schedule.
It would be even better if we managed to improve the generator. Then, it'd increase energy produced, no matter what the source is.
I dont care as long as they keep the reactors away from me. I dont like radiation.
yea, the EPA's yearly release limit for radiation from nuclear reactors is less than the yearly dose from the potassium in your body.
(source)
edit: And you receive more radiation from 1 banana than living 50 miles from an average nuclear reactor for a whole year.
I'm all for nuclear energy. Sure there are the issue of reactor safety and the placement of nuclear waste but those can be solved for sure.
Currently there are folks who are raising a shitstorm over the nuclear reactors in California after the Japanese incident. Blah I say. The nuclear reactors themselves handled the earthquake like a boss. They have to make the backup systems more robust then yeah, all good in that department.
Now for the waste... nuclear water heater anyone? :tongue.gif:
I voted no, but that's only because I don't support nuclear fission. If and when we figure out fusion, I'd be all for it. I'm mostly against fissions simply for the amount of waste it makes. I just don't think a half-life of several hundred thousand years is acceptable. Besides, there are better forms of energy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Vincenzo »
It's like a circle-jerk of family values, Christianity and nationalism.
Yes, not only should we fund new nuclear fission reactors, we should put more money to development of nuclear fusion reactors.
*there may or may not be cake
Agreed
Nuclear energy may be dangerous, but it creates a lot of energy. Nuclear Fusion would be phenomenal when it's discovered how to create it, except when used in bombs.
because windmills kill cute little birdies but not the angry ugly ones.
The US should expand their entire energy system, and have a pretty balanced amount of power from things like windmills, solar power, nuclear power, fossil fuels, etc, etc. Any nation that relies largely on one form of energy isn't a balanced nation. If you rely solely on one type of energy, than that leaves that system open for many types of holes later on. I voted yes, in any case.
So you would rather have a resource consuming way of making energy rather than a "green" way of making energy, just because of a few birds?
Some people are just crazy. I also hear Russia or someone is thinking about making nuclear energy illegal as well
Nuclear energy is green energy the only undesirable by product is nuclear waste which if we research enough can be taken care of or if were lucky be used for something beneficial. And its not just a few birds its thousands
1
Windmills killing birds? Never heard of any proof.
2
Windmills just are too expensive, take up too much space, and don't create enough energy. Nuclear power is more efficient in the space it uses.
oh wow, the wind. Yea, great source of energy.[/sarcasm] Lets just create the sun in a box! Which we plan on completing in 2018ish if ITER is on schedule.
And what creates wind? the sun, so clearly recreating the sun is the best source of energy.
*there may or may not be cake
It would be even better if we managed to improve the generator. Then, it'd increase energy produced, no matter what the source is.
Damn thats a good idea! Why dont they?
New technology would be needed I assume which they don't have.
yea, the EPA's yearly release limit for radiation from nuclear reactors is less than the yearly dose from the potassium in your body.
(source)
edit: And you receive more radiation from 1 banana than living 50 miles from an average nuclear reactor for a whole year.
*there may or may not be cake
I don't know.
Maybe they just never thought about it?
Damn i could've used that in my debate! But yeah even workers only have slightly higher cahnces of cancer and stuff.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumCurrently there are folks who are raising a shitstorm over the nuclear reactors in California after the Japanese incident. Blah I say. The nuclear reactors themselves handled the earthquake like a boss. They have to make the backup systems more robust then yeah, all good in that department.
Now for the waste... nuclear water heater anyone? :tongue.gif:
See? I'm not so malicious...