Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Nuclear Energy

Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 11:44:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Uh... are you asking for a scientific answer or an economic answer?
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 5:15:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nuclear energy uses hydrogen. We don't (severely) need hydrogen to survive, and air is mostly made of the stuff. We have a very large supply of it.

Also, theoretically, the waste energy could be harnessed in fission after the fusion.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 11:25:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 10:32:20 AM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Fission or Fusion? Y'know that there's two types.

I would assume he meant fission as it is the only viable way to get energy (electricity) from a nuclear reaction. I think that we need MANY more nuclear power plants so that we can have an abundant and cheap supply of energy until something better comes along.

Fusion reactors consume more energy than they produce, so it will be a while before (if ever) they become efficient enough for electrical production.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 10:31:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
We need Thorium nuclear power plants.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 10:33:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Funny how the nuclear engineer never weighs in on the alternative energy discussions.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 10:39:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 10:33:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Funny how the nuclear engineer never weighs in on the alternative energy discussions.

A good deal of people have an irrational fear of nuclear energy for obvious, if unfounded reasons. Probably the first thing a lot of people think about when you say nuclear power plant is Chernobyl.

Unfortunately for scientific progress, people continue to view such things with a "Humans were never meant to go there" attitude. That idea is already so ingrained in society that for some people, nuclear energy is a taboo subject.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 11:51:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 2:44:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 10:34:16 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
How can this be sustainable over the next 1,000 years?

I think it is pretty sustainable..

the only thing, from what I know, is you end up with these big blocks of nuclear waste taking up space for the next couple million years (# made up of the top of my head) or so http://www.scientificamerican.com...

and, well.. I suppose it'll be bad if/when they rupture..
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 3:46:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 10:39:53 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/28/2012 10:33:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Funny how the nuclear engineer never weighs in on the alternative energy discussions.

A good deal of people have an irrational fear of nuclear energy for obvious, if unfounded reasons. Probably the first thing a lot of people think about when you say nuclear power plant is Chernobyl.

Unfortunately for scientific progress, people continue to view such things with a "Humans were never meant to go there" attitude. That idea is already so ingrained in society that for some people, nuclear energy is a taboo subject.

I was discussing nuclear plants with some kids at my school, and the kept on mentioning Chernobly as "irrefutable evidence that its unsafe and dangerous".........no matter how much I explained that Chernobly was about as unsafe and badly run and nuclear power plant as you could make, they still refused to listen.....
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 5:03:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 10:34:16 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
How can this be sustainable over the next 1,000 years?

There appears to be enough fissionable material, we can develop better safety procedures, and the nuclear waste can always be stored in Canada.

Do you think it isn't sustainable?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 5:38:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 2:44:36 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/27/2012 10:34:16 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
How can this be sustainable over the next 1,000 years?
I think it is pretty sustainable..
I agree with mattrodstrom. Furthermore, it doesn't need to be sustainable for the next 1000 years. If we don't come up with something better within the next 100, we're probably effed!

the only thing, from what I know, is you end up with these big blocks of nuclear waste taking up space for the next couple million years (# made up of the top of my head) or so http://www.scientificamerican.com...
Well, Yucca Mt. facility cost $90 billion (and it's not finished because of enviro-nazis) can house 100 years worth of spent fuel and that's without reprocessing it. I think that within the next 50 to 100 years we can come up with better sources (fusion, solar, etc.) Nano technology and other material sciences will lead the way!

and, well.. I suppose it'll be bad if/when they rupture..
Not if we reprocess the material and store them properly in Yucca Mt. Even if so, it's plenty isolated and we have to also account for future technologies that will allow for improvements in storage.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 5:41:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 3:46:30 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 8/28/2012 10:39:53 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/28/2012 10:33:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Funny how the nuclear engineer never weighs in on the alternative energy discussions.

A good deal of people have an irrational fear of nuclear energy for obvious, if unfounded reasons. Probably the first thing a lot of people think about when you say nuclear power plant is Chernobyl.

Unfortunately for scientific progress, people continue to view such things with a "Humans were never meant to go there" attitude. That idea is already so ingrained in society that for some people, nuclear energy is a taboo subject.

I was discussing nuclear plants with some kids at my school, and the kept on mentioning Chernobly as "irrefutable evidence that its unsafe and dangerous".........no matter how much I explained that Chernobly was about as unsafe and badly run and nuclear power plant as you could make, they still refused to listen.....

Challenge accepeted
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 6:37:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
When you think about it, a nuclear power plant is nothing more than a glorified steam engine in the same way an electric car is coal fired. The only way to get emission free is nuclear power and the electric car. So if any of you out there get your panties all in a bunch about air pollution, this is the only combination that will satisfy your pollution free mentality. I choose a "realistic" air pollution standard, it goes away and is a lot less deadly. Lets set the AP standard and never revisit this subject again.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 6:40:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 5:03:21 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
the nuclear waste can always be stored in Canada.

Ha! Kills two birds with one stone :)

Solves our little problem, And finds a way to make canada somewhat useful
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 8:13:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 5:03:21 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/27/2012 10:34:16 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
How can this be sustainable over the next 1,000 years?

There appears to be enough fissionable material, we can develop better safety procedures, and the nuclear waste can always be stored in Canada.

Do you think it isn't sustainable?

Not Canada!
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 8:28:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 6:37:08 PM, sadolite wrote:
When you think about it, a nuclear power plant is nothing more than a glorified steam engine in the same way an electric car is coal fired. The only way to get emission free is nuclear power and the electric car. So if any of you out there get your panties all in a bunch about air pollution, this is the only combination that will satisfy your pollution free mentality. I choose a "realistic" air pollution standard, it goes away and is a lot less deadly. Lets set the AP standard and never revisit this subject again.

Pollution isn't all that bad- if there is a moderate amount of it then it doesn't contribute to climate change (if greenhouse gas) and isn't too harmful for the inhabitants of a society. Anyways, "zero pollution" is an unattainable goal as it requires killing all living beings that either excrete waste or breathe in oxygen.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 8:32:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 8:28:55 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/29/2012 6:37:08 PM, sadolite wrote:
When you think about it, a nuclear power plant is nothing more than a glorified steam engine in the same way an electric car is coal fired. The only way to get emission free is nuclear power and the electric car. So if any of you out there get your panties all in a bunch about air pollution, this is the only combination that will satisfy your pollution free mentality. I choose a "realistic" air pollution standard, it goes away and is a lot less deadly. Lets set the AP standard and never revisit this subject again.

Pollution isn't all that bad- if there is a moderate amount of it then it doesn't contribute to climate change (if greenhouse gas) and isn't too harmful for the inhabitants of a society. Anyways, "zero pollution" is an unattainable goal as it requires killing all living beings that either excrete waste or breathe in oxygen.

coal energy has co2 emissions. Nuclear energy doesn't, unless you count the co2 emissions from energy used to extract the uranium and refine it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 8:33:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 8:32:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/29/2012 8:28:55 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/29/2012 6:37:08 PM, sadolite wrote:
When you think about it, a nuclear power plant is nothing more than a glorified steam engine in the same way an electric car is coal fired. The only way to get emission free is nuclear power and the electric car. So if any of you out there get your panties all in a bunch about air pollution, this is the only combination that will satisfy your pollution free mentality. I choose a "realistic" air pollution standard, it goes away and is a lot less deadly. Lets set the AP standard and never revisit this subject again.

Pollution isn't all that bad- if there is a moderate amount of it then it doesn't contribute to climate change (if greenhouse gas) and isn't too harmful for the inhabitants of a society. Anyways, "zero pollution" is an unattainable goal as it requires killing all living beings that either excrete waste or breathe in oxygen.

coal energy has co2 emissions. Nuclear energy doesn't, unless you count the co2 emissions from energy used to extract the uranium and refine it.

It was more of a response towards Sadolite's post about realistic pollution.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 8:35:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 8:33:47 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/29/2012 8:32:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/29/2012 8:28:55 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/29/2012 6:37:08 PM, sadolite wrote:
When you think about it, a nuclear power plant is nothing more than a glorified steam engine in the same way an electric car is coal fired. The only way to get emission free is nuclear power and the electric car. So if any of you out there get your panties all in a bunch about air pollution, this is the only combination that will satisfy your pollution free mentality. I choose a "realistic" air pollution standard, it goes away and is a lot less deadly. Lets set the AP standard and never revisit this subject again.

Pollution isn't all that bad- if there is a moderate amount of it then it doesn't contribute to climate change (if greenhouse gas) and isn't too harmful for the inhabitants of a society. Anyways, "zero pollution" is an unattainable goal as it requires killing all living beings that either excrete waste or breathe in oxygen.

coal energy has co2 emissions. Nuclear energy doesn't, unless you count the co2 emissions from energy used to extract the uranium and refine it.

It was more of a response towards Sadolite's post about realistic pollution.

I was kind of responding to both of you.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
TheBossToss
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 7:13:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Fissio is sure as heck sustainable untill we run out of uranium, and we could always shoot the waste into space. When (and we will certainly be able to, one day in the distant future) nuclear fusion becomes profitable, then we will have a very efficient and waste-less form of energy that's fuel makes up 90% of the universe. I think bioth frms will be the future of energy (until the public overcomes its fear of it).
Cats. I like cats.
-Me

Pro hasn't upheld his BOP. He forfeited last round. I did stuff.
-Wallstreetatheist

That was real intellectual property theft. They used her idea for their own profit and fame. When I pirate, I am usually downloading textbooks that I cannot afford to purchase on my own and that I do not want my parents to spend money on.
-royalpaladin
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 7:16:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 2:44:36 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/27/2012 10:34:16 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
How can this be sustainable over the next 1,000 years?

I think it is pretty sustainable..

the only thing, from what I know, is you end up with these big blocks of nuclear waste taking up space for the next couple million years (# made up of the top of my head) or so http://www.scientificamerican.com...

and, well.. I suppose it'll be bad if/when they rupture..

Could we shoot them in a nuclear-powered rocket toward the sun?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 10:52:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 10:34:16 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
How can this be sustainable over the next 1,000 years?

If anyone is against Nuclear energy, I'd be willing to debate them on nearly any aspect of it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 11:03:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 7:16:20 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 8/29/2012 2:44:36 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/27/2012 10:34:16 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
How can this be sustainable over the next 1,000 years?

I think it is pretty sustainable..

the only thing, from what I know, is you end up with these big blocks of nuclear waste taking up space for the next couple million years (# made up of the top of my head) or so http://www.scientificamerican.com...

and, well.. I suppose it'll be bad if/when they rupture..

Could we shoot them in a nuclear-powered rocket toward the sun?

No needed. Through reprocessing, the left over Uranium and Plutonium (or Thorium if that is your product of choice) is extracted (to be reused), which leaves just the actual waste.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(by_element)

The first thing to note is that the waste is not a single thing, it is a medley of various elements and each one decays at its own rate. Some of the most dangerous to health are I129, I131, I132, Cs137, Sr90, and Sr89 and a bit of Ba140. All of these have half lives of less than 40 years. Most other waste is not particularly harmful to people because it is not absorbed into the body where it can continue to harm you.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 7:58:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 7:16:20 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Could we shoot them in a nuclear-powered rocket toward the sun?

That was my first thought too...

but it seems like that'd probably get real expensive.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 8:09:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 11:03:08 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/2/2012 7:16:20 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 8/29/2012 2:44:36 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/27/2012 10:34:16 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
How can this be sustainable over the next 1,000 years?

I think it is pretty sustainable..

the only thing, from what I know, is you end up with these big blocks of nuclear waste taking up space for the next couple million years (# made up of the top of my head) or so http://www.scientificamerican.com...

and, well.. I suppose it'll be bad if/when they rupture..

Could we shoot them in a nuclear-powered rocket toward the sun?

No needed. Through reprocessing, the left over Uranium and Plutonium (or Thorium if that is your product of choice) is extracted (to be reused), which leaves just the actual waste.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(by_element)

The first thing to note is that the waste is not a single thing, it is a medley of various elements and each one decays at its own rate. Some of the most dangerous to health are I129, I131, I132, Cs137, Sr90, and Sr89 and a bit of Ba140. All of these have half lives of less than 40 years. Most other waste is not particularly harmful to people because it is not absorbed into the body where it can continue to harm you.

A topic you are well-versed in?! You've Made Me So... Very Happy!!!
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 9:15:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 8:09:25 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/2/2012 11:03:08 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/2/2012 7:16:20 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 8/29/2012 2:44:36 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/27/2012 10:34:16 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
How can this be sustainable over the next 1,000 years?

I think it is pretty sustainable..

the only thing, from what I know, is you end up with these big blocks of nuclear waste taking up space for the next couple million years (# made up of the top of my head) or so http://www.scientificamerican.com...

and, well.. I suppose it'll be bad if/when they rupture..

Could we shoot them in a nuclear-powered rocket toward the sun?

No needed. Through reprocessing, the left over Uranium and Plutonium (or Thorium if that is your product of choice) is extracted (to be reused), which leaves just the actual waste.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(by_element)

The first thing to note is that the waste is not a single thing, it is a medley of various elements and each one decays at its own rate. Some of the most dangerous to health are I129, I131, I132, Cs137, Sr90, and Sr89 and a bit of Ba140. All of these have half lives of less than 40 years. Most other waste is not particularly harmful to people because it is not absorbed into the body where it can continue to harm you.

A topic you are well-versed in?! You've Made Me So... Very Happy!!!



Not sure if that is suppose to be a dig or not.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 12:06:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nuclear Energy might not be.. But science has discovered how to convert heat into electricity:

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

This could eventually revolutionized sustainable energy with two sources.. The sun, and Earths volcanism (geothermal energy) .. And the new discovery in the link above could prove very interesting in both these fields.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 12:26:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 12:06:38 AM, TheJackel wrote:
Nuclear Energy might not be.. But science has discovered how to convert heat into electricity:

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

This could eventually revolutionized sustainable energy with two sources.. The sun, and Earths volcanism (geothermal energy) .. And the new discovery in the link above could prove very interesting in both these fields.

I've seen this before but I've never heard it explained exactly how it can work, getting electricity from heat would revolutionize everything.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler