How environmentally friendly is nuclear energy?

Avatar (or Troll) My head may be small but my heart is broader than yours. !0 year is a shame.

And why not invest Billions here ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because, oh limited one, you can't mach fusion in actual power output with measely biofuel, which is ok for vehicles, but is not going to power modern cities.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dunno which fragment you are stood on, but all the Earth around me looks intact. It seems you make up for your lack of comprehension by being a drama queen. I am a 'light green' when it comes to the environment. I care about carbon emissions, and global warming. That's why I am pro-nuclear!

Which are the 'agricultural countries'? I think that the USA, and EU will be in the best position to grow crops and manufacture fuel oil on a large scale. Being a resident of the EU, why would that make me unhappy? Severing any dependancy on another country for fuel would be fantastic!

If however, you have some rustic notion of third world farmers somehow benefiting from BioFuels, you're barking mad.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There's lot of unused farmland in Latvia now, we have good climatic conditions, lots of water and people that are educated.
Russia could benefit a lot from producing biofuel too.
After the fall of the USSR they have wast areas of unused farmland and workforce.

 

Talk about wasting billions on unproved technology.

 

The 493 nuclear power plants operating around the world today are unproved?

 

do i have to go DRA the info about thehistory of HEMP to thiss table?....ywr so out of date.
and i was not suggesting ONLY hemp. i am not for a monosolution. we need multidisciplined apprach, INCLUDING a radical change of life style!
but i am VERY distrusting of nuclear industry--the people that back it, and your little 'baby' nuclear fusion

 

Well, that's your problem.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

errrrrr no, is EVEYbody's fukin problem and i MEAN everyBODY

it goes witout saying that i do not in any way shape or form gell with you and your like-minded arguers here's philosophy, which is materialist and dead. so why the livin ...should i trust YOU and not my sources

see the prob?

whay should you cre about quality. you dont even feel you are more than a glorified computer....! i mean .puleeeeze

 

What do you think is wrong with nuclear fusion?

 

It has the word "nuclear" in it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But Duendy may have a few positive things to say about the nuclear family. Oh, silly me. That's part of the patriarchal conspiracy. Nuclear is really bad.

 

I propose to globally rename "nuclear" to "fluffy".
You just can't be against fluffy energy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It is silly, but you have a good point. I will try to call it "hydrogen fusion" in future. That will trade on the "hydrogen economy" nonsense we hear so much about.

 

Spending of money on the fusion research instead of using it on technologies that can actually reduce cardondioxide in air by genetically modifing plants to produce fuel at the same time.

 

It is a very good point, I agree. My partner went for an MRI scan yesterday. When I was a physics student, these were called 'NMR' scans, 'Nuclear Magnetic Resonance', but the 'nuclear' word was bad PR, so it became 'Magentic Resonance Imaging'.

Shame they didn't take the opportunity to educate the public that 'nuclear' does not imply radiation. Sorry, I mean ionising radation. See how we've backpeddled to accomodate the small sminded?

 

i dont kno. that is what i am trying to find out. i have already presented about hrrendous concerns about nuclear fission--Fritjof Capra--.
from wht i have learnt, it has been a pipe dream, nuclear fusion, and has been put off and putt offff. and is going to cost loads and loads of dosh ad SYILL not really be ecologicaly and economically frienly......but it seems you nd co has aloready made yer minds up

this is the difference between me and you. tho i know you'll like to tink your hot shit

so, yeah. I am trying to FIND OUT about it. not listen to religious devotees of it
bleatin away there...

 

To Avatar...
I was just reading your first batch of posts and couldn't help but respond.

For me the real question about your nuclear power plant is "Who's going to be in charge of running the thing and how trustworthy/competent are they?". France is doing fine but with all the rampant mismanagement in my country I wouldn't trust my government with a nuclear power plant.

If you're pretty sure that they'll run the thing properly (and not attacked by terrorists and whatnot) then you really are better off with a nuclear power plant. Otherwise, you should be cautious about promoting such an energy source change.

Incidentally, though nuclear waste can be safely processed and stored, a lot of it is instead passed on to "third world countries" (like mine) where regulation of nuclear waste is next to nil.

(Unrelated but I am hoping that my country can fix things up in the next couple of years so that it wouldn't be madness to have a nuclear power plant here. It looks like we just might be on our way. Maybe.)

 

Avatar quit making this thread more retarded.

You are willing to look at half of the hydrocarbon question, and half of the nuclear question.

1) Nuclear energy is not free of waste. We've already proven that, so if you would like to praise anyone, you could begin with the people who dispose of nuclear wastes, that would be more appropriate, don't you think?

2) Hydrocarbons are used to power vehicles, nuclear power powers nations and cities, not the other way around. You mean to tell me it's feasable to stick a miniature nuclear reactor within every car you see?

2a) If that were true, nobody would really care about disposing of the nuclear waste from their car, and your whole "cleanliness" pyramid comes toppling down.

Is there anything else you'd like to tell the world?

 

1) Of course it isn't, but that waste doesn't harm anyone while fossil fuel waste ends up directly in our environment, including atmosphere.
2) I don't remember I ever proposed to place nuclear reactors in cars. From where do you get that stuff? I directly pointed out that nuclear energy is perfect for powering cities. There is a difference between city infrastructure and cars, you little, confused mind.