|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:28 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 11:41 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 5:06 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 2:49 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 1:28 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 4:31 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 4:39 pm
|
|
|
|
anelabela nuclear energy is increasingly being used by the world to generate energy, but though use and manufacturing is environmentaly friendly, the issue of waste management and the threat of nuclear weapon poliferation is big I'm not sure if these are as big a problem as people make them out to be, though.
We mine the radioactive material out of the ground in the first place. Purifying it does cause it to release more radiation faster but it also has the effect of very quickly reducing how long it will be radioactive. I've also heard about different kinds of breeder reactors which can easily produce power from "radioactive waste" which we in the US have already buried underground. I wish I could remember which country was supposedly doing this, though. Basically, it's reprocessing waste in different kinds of reactors. I mean, if they're still releasing so much radiation then it's a no-brainer that there should be a way to harness that energy.
As for the threat of nuclear weapons, I've heard you need to have way more refined radioactive material than what's used in Nuclear Reactors. Apparently it's a pretty hard chemistry problem but I don't really know the details well enough to really confirm.
Basically, it sounds like a lot of the "common knowledge" floating around (here in the US, anyways) about Nuclear Reactors is leftover FUD (short for Fear, Uncertainty, Denial). If so, it's pretty thuroughly spread out, though, since even my dad (whom I consider smart) is stuck on the "waste management" problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:27 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:39 am
|
|
|
|
The most practical source of energy is nuclear, but the only problem is what to do with the water that becomes radioactive when it cools the engine. There are a number of solutions for this, but since the world isin a state of fear about non existant "global warming," more people buy electric cars that cost huge amounts of money, more money for the government, and few people realize that electric cars do more harm than good. One electric plant releases more pollution in a week than a city does in a month. It is a complicated process that does harm the enviorment. The other stupid thing about global warming is that they say it is the emission of Co2 into the atmosphere, but one volcano eruption emits more Co2 in one eruption than Los Angeles, New York and Mexico City combined for 10 years. As to the person above me, oil companies arn't the problem, it's the media, poloticians and legal system. They create problems that do not exist and tell the world to blame someone else. The oil companies are run by hard working people who are constantly battered by the media and have laws passed against them when they provide the US with most of it's income. So does that seem "fair?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:28 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:01 pm
|
|
|
|
The problem with your argument, ferret, is that volcanos don't erupt as often as every 10 years, not in the magnitude necessary to produce the amount of those cities. In any case, we can't turn off or reduce emissions by volcanos anyway, and since it's an accumulative effect of adding more CO2 in the air, we do what we can to reduce vehicle emissions.
One thing I can tell you FOR SURE is that global warming is a fact. It is not some made-up problem, it has been measured and calculated by scientists all over the globe that the world, in fact, is rising in temperature. What's under DEBATE is the cause and what effects it may have in the future.
Oil companies run by hard working people? They may certainly have hard working people working for them, but the people in charge certainly find time to go out on their yachts and pad their wallets with the money of said hard working people. Ever hear of Enron?
I think the "electric plants" you're refering to are the coal-burning plants which provide the US with most of its power, and are among the dirtiest fossil fuels. Oil is cleaner, but natural gas is even cleaner than that. The problem is that both oils and natural gas aren't as cheap to use or transport as coal, which is why we use the stuff so much. Nuclear energy is incredibly clean, and in no way contaminates the water used to cool it. The problem arises when the fuel source is no longer useful, and we have no place to put the nuclear waste. So far we're sealing them in drums and putting them deep in the ground, but that won't last forever. Also, in the case of a nuclear meltdown, the isotope melts through the ground until it hits an underground water source, and readily contaminates THAT water source and the surrounding environment.
The cleanest and most renewable sources we have are hydroelecticity at dams and tides, which cause environmental repercussions of their own, and wind power, which is takes up lots of space and is potentially costly. Solar energy is viable, but is not yet efficient enough for us to use on a large scale. Use of methane gas produced by fecal matter is the best idea I've seen yet, which produces a clean energy source and recycles at the same time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 3:20 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:10 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|