Nuclear power and advanced tech. The good, the bad, and the mentally unstable (aka the USSR).
- Thread starter Not_Steve
- Start date
Clean? Check. Safe? Check. Powerful? Check. Effective? Check. Stable? Check. Scaleable? Check.
Someone would have to be very uneducated and/or very unintelligent to be opposed to it. ("OMG NUCLEAR BAN NOW").
My point in a far more mature and understandable form.
Sent from my iPhone 96Z using some top secret Dalekslayer Inc. technology.
If you want to lose it again go to the greenpeace website.
I read the other day that Greenpeace lost 3.8 million euros in a bad currency exchange deal. Serves the watermelons right imo
. Not sure if you will see that on its front page though.
I read the other day that Greenpeace lost 3.8 million euros in a bad currency exchange deal. Serves the watermelons right imo
By bad currency exchange deal you mean they tried to give it to a dolphin.
I hear hilarity ensued.
Actually energy positive with modern physics and engineering: empty box. Maybe someday. Open research.
The irony of America's effective ban on new, modern nuclear power plants is that it makes everyone less safe. Modern nuclear power plants are safer, physically cannot go critical w/out the application of a lot of outside energy, and actually process what was once considered waste material by first and second generation reactors as fuel, rendering them far less harmful to the environment.
And that ignores all these amazing thermopile designs that have 150 year lifespans and are actually safe and suitable for deployment in individual cities and suburbs.
Nuclear-fear is the original GMO-fear; people who are so afraid of the march of science that they actually make themselves less safe and less likely to succeed as a species.
Last edited:
Celestialphoenix
Too Much Free Time
Clean?
What about cost of infrastructure? All that material has to come from somewhere.
I fully support nuclear power, I just passionately hate the phrase 'clean energy'
- It implies there's zero cost/impact from your chosen powerplant.
Space lasers
In the case of "clean" we mean "relative to every other energy positive process we are aware of." And in this specific case, "It mimics the process by which our own biology was given material to form." Hell, the ideal process's output is Helium, something the world is critically short on and that is being depleted by irresponsible financial policies in the US government.
I am not sure who it implies it to or who you suspect implies it, but that's certainly not what it means or what most people mean when they say it. We don't mean "clean" as in "zero cost/impact" for photovoltaics or fluid/gas turbines either.
AFAIK, the closest we have to minimized impact power is industrial-era solar concentrators that use mostly low-quality glass and polished iron.
Last edited:
Celestialphoenix
Too Much Free Time
Its just one of those phrases that people throw around a lot in everyday language; taking it as the literal meaning (ie 'zero impact') rather than the actual meaning (somewhat cleaner). So when they see 'clean energy' they think 'OMG zero-impact'
Its kinda the same way people talk 'organic' as 'no nasty/bad chemicals', rather than the branch of carbon based chemistry.
I have to agree though; long term fusion is probably the 'cleanest' energy. When we get it working.
Its kinda the same way people talk 'organic' as 'no nasty/bad chemicals', rather than the branch of carbon based chemistry.
I have to agree though; long term fusion is probably the 'cleanest' energy. When we get it working.
"Organic" food is another great example of the GMO/Nuclear effect, in that "organic" fertilizers are simply unrefined variants of existing industrial fertilizers. The net result is a higher impact to the environment because the actual problem is the quantity of food being grown, not the process.
This, by the by, is in sharp contrast to industrial meat farming where "organic" actually constitutes a decrease in antibiotic dosing for the animals which is desperately necessary.
I'M NOT READY TO GO, ITS TOO SCARY TO DIE!!!
They ONLY lost 3.8 million Euros? I was expecting at least 10 million Euros.I read the other day that Greenpeace lost 3.8 million euros in a bad currency exchange deal. Serves the watermelons right imo
Sent from my iPhone 96Z using some top secret Dalekslayer Inc. technology.
Last edited: