Tweet
There really is no such thing as risk free energy though some sources of energy are more risk minimized than others; nuclear power really is one of the most risk minimized energy sources. When you burn coal you end up with acid rain, large amounts of mercury in the food chain, and left over ash which is even more radioactive then most spent fuel rods. We've run out of rivers to dam (and the will to dam them as well) while oil and gas just make global climate change worse and such have very unpredictable and dangerous consequences. For massive amounts of power 24/7 nuclear power is just about the only option in most places. Luckily with fuel rod recycling you end up with virtually no waste products what so ever so for me it's a no brainer as long as we have true experts making the regulations and not corrupt politicians being bribed by industry lobbyists to let them cut corners.
-
Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate. -
You do remember what country we live in, right?Originally posted by Oerdin View Post"My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
"The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund FreudComment
-
Yeah, what Oerdin said. Windmills and solar are impractical and infeasible.If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
){ :|:& };:Comment
-
The nuclear industry is pretty clean (no pun intended), guynemer.Originally posted by Guynemer View Post
By the way, you know the US is one of the least corrupt countries in the world, right? Even compared to europe...If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
){ :|:& };:Comment
-
The industry may, or may not, be pretty clean. Our government, in every branch, at every level, is laughably unclean."My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
"The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund FreudComment
-
I'd say it is actually pretty good. Far from perfect, but pretty good. And I don't know about Ohio's state government but state & local is pretty good here.If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
){ :|:& };:Comment
-
22nd.Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark TwainComment
-
Yeah, that was the point of raising that caveat. I'm afraid America's political system is chalk full of corruption.Originally posted by Guynemer View Post
Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
A glorious career as a comedian awaits you.Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
Comment
-
He should go visit Chicago."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "Comment
-
HC had a nuclear meltdown in his brain."Ceterum censeo Ben esse expellendum."Comment
-
I've always wondered about methane. Why isn't it used more? In the US a lot of dairies are energy neutral or even produce more energy than they use (across their entire operation) by digesting the animal waste. By that point about 90% of the methane has escaped already, so digesting plant matter would seem like it would be even more productive. Now in some climates there just isn't enough vegetation to go about harvesting enough to really make a difference, but in places like here... in a relatively small area like the yard at the house (which is perhaps 1/4 acre) there's literally tons of vegetative matter just piled up to decay or be burned for cooking or just to keep it from piling up. Then natural gas prices are outrageous, about 2x what it costs in Manila where it's still more expensive than in most industrial nations.
Not only would digesting all this plant matter yield a lot of methane, it would decrease a lot of burning. Of course you end up burning the methane, but by that point a lot of the pollutants have been removed from the equation and you are offsetting the burning of fossile fuels which would instead be releasing CO2 which would have been sequestered otherwise. The main drawback is you would be taking nutrients from the soil, but since these debris are generally being burned, that isn't actually happening anyways (and the burning leads to lower soil pH which is generally already low enough in rainy climates)
It seems a nearly limitless energy source that's doubly green and has already proven itself economically viable in less favorable conditions. Plus it's a good way of creating high quality soil additives (less disease concerns than with composted manure) that can somewhat help offset fertilizers from petroleum products. So it's triply green.
Comment
-
Apolyton is pronuclear
Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez DávilaComment
-
Solar technology is moving on fast.Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View PostJon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy.
We've got both kindsComment
-
If I could I'd live in a nuclear reactor. That's my stance on nuclear power.Comment
Comment