View Poll Results: More nuclear power?
- 20. You may not vote on this poll
Sure build more!
Nicht nicht, get rid of those bad boys!!!
Thread: Nuclear power poll
11-10-2005, 12:17 PM #1
Nuclear power poll
Do you want a expansion in nuclear power plants or a reduction??
plz motivate vote
11-10-2005, 02:29 PM #2
why not it is clean and efficient.. Well unless there is a melt down and then millions die but that helps give jobs to the unemployed.
11-10-2005, 02:38 PM #3New Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
What is your response Johan and why?
11-10-2005, 02:48 PM #4
my respons is build MORE. I would like 70%+ of the energy coming from fission power until we crack fusion.
My reason for that is because its the cleanest, safest and most economical power source we have aviable and would be the first serious step to get away from the coal and oil dependancy the western world suffers from.
11-10-2005, 04:47 PM #5
I got nothing against Nuclear power, but we don't really need it here...
The province of Quebec is lucky in that it has AMPLE hydro-electric power... 7/10'ths of the province is for all intente inhabitable, yet it's a massive water reservoir. We've tapped into this and as a result have some of the cheapest electricity in the world.
Of course we just happen to be lucky and have this resource... for places where this is not possible though I think Nuclear is fine.
Coal and oil burning to make electricity should be banned.
11-11-2005, 04:53 AM #6
red its the same in sweden. We have ALOT of hydroelectric power. If I was in charge of the energy department I would build alot more hydro plants and more nuclear plants. As it is now sweden is shutting down functional nuclear plants because the swedish people voted if we should dismantel them or not in the 80's. Stupid move if you ask me. We get something like 80% of our electricity from nukes and hydro combined.
I cant for the life of me figure why the green movements are against nuclear power. They are shooting themself in the foot.
11-11-2005, 05:07 AM #7
I vote yes, but with the plants around isnt that a big risk???I mean humans always find a way to mess up that shit...shit which could happen:
-enemies could blow it up
-the cooling pipes which go in the sea..(dunno if they still use these) kill all the aquatic life and shit
-natural stomrs , hurricanes , etc.....
-plant problems:leakage etc...
how would you take care of these problems??
11-11-2005, 05:19 AM #8
Ironfreak. The regulations of emissions from nuclear plants is imensly strickt. Right now in the usa for instance coal power plants release thousdands of times more nuclear waste into the atmosphere(because of residues in the coal).
Enemies can blow it up yes, but not even al qaida seems crasy enough to target a nuclear plant. This could probably be solved with a very rigid structure around the core.
I dont know about the cooling pipes but I cant imagine they kill aquatic life in any great extent maby just around the pipe.
Storms and hurricans are easily solved. Build them to be able to resist a cat 5 without problem.
Nuclear power plants so seldomly run into problems. Most think of chernobyl but fossile fuel plants have killed alot more people than chernobyl. I have read estimates of 80 000 people a year that die prematurely becuase of the polution from coal/oil power.
Chernobyl is also the only plant ever to have releases alot of radioactive material and it was simply because the manager of the plant shut down every safety system to run a test and didnt listen to his advicers. This is impossible in modern plants. They can be built in ways that make meltdown totaly impossible, the core would be built in a way that makes it shut down itself before reaching that point. Leakage isnt a problem either if the plant is properly constructed.
Waste material is a problem, but a slim problem compered to the millions of tons of chemical waste that has to be stored indefenetly since it never loses its toxicity.
New ways of using the nuclear waste to get more energy from it is beeing developed that will ultimately mean the waste will only have to be stored for maby 100 years.
11-11-2005, 05:26 AM #9
I guess if theyre built and regulated rite with very strict security..then yeah why not??
btw johan , is the language in sweden the same as amsterdam??
11-11-2005, 05:33 AM #10
nope. I dont know what they speak in amsterdamn but it sure isnt swedish how come you ask??
11-11-2005, 05:46 AM #11Originally Posted by johan
11-11-2005, 05:57 AM #12English Rudeboy
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
They speak dutch in amsterdam bro.
11-11-2005, 06:58 AM #13
11-11-2005, 09:20 AM #14
I kind of think of chernobyl as proof of how safe a nuclear plant is. I mean it clearly showed that a person intentionaly has to do everything wrong and disregard every safety procedure for something disastrous to happen.
good luck with the amsterdamn chick iron
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)