Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[/b]
To use a cliche': this is kicking the can down the road. Nuclear = bad idea. Folks on here need to stop pretending to be scientists and read the science. If it ain't a natural energy source, it ain't right!
First of all, nuclear IS a natural energy source, what do you think the sun is? Second, we already have ways to dispose of nuclear waste properly. My point is by the year 2100, there would probably be even better ways to dispose of it. Third, that article is weak, with absolutely no concrete substance. Nuclear = bad, because remember Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile island?? is an absolute midwit argument.
First of all, nuclear IS a natural energy source, what do you think the sun is? Second, we already have ways to dispose of nuclear waste properly. My point is by the year 2100, there would probably be even better ways to dispose of it. Third, that article is weak, with absolutely no concrete substance. Nuclear = bad, because remember Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile island?? is an absolute midwit argument.
I don't believe it is and I'm not alone in my thinking that nuclear is not a natural because uranium (not the sun) isn't renewable. You just stated that "we have ways to dispose of nuclear waste properly" - well you don't need ways to dispose of the wind, sun, and water. You relating nuclear to the sun is like relating wind power to the sun - that is, there is no relationship. The year 2100 huh? You're speculating. Third, nuclear disasters that kills and displaces hundreds if not thousands of people - not to mention wildlife and lingering radioactivity - is a nitwit argument?
I don't believe it is and I'm not alone in my thinking that nuclear is not a natural because uranium (not the sun) isn't renewable. You just stated that "we have ways to dispose of nuclear waste properly" - well you don't need ways to dispose of the wind, sun, and water. You relating nuclear to the sun is like relating wind power to the sun - that is, there is no relationship. The year 2100 huh? You're speculating.
What do you mean there is no relationship? The sun is literally a nuclear fusion reactor in the sky. The light you see and the heat you feel from the sun is literally radiation energy coming off an exposed nuclear reaction, since the sun is not encased in a protective layer or anything.
The year 2100 is not a speculation, since the half lives and cooling periods of these materials are precisely known. The nuclear waste is generated after the materials sufficiently cool down and it takes 80 years for the current generation reactors.
Quote:
Third, nuclear disasters that kills and displaces hundreds if not thousands of people - not to mention wildlife and lingering radioactivity - is a nitwit argument?
Yes, because more people die from installing wind turbines than from all nuclear disasters ever. The fact that you can even list all nuclear accidents that resulted in deaths on one hand speaks volumes. The accidents from other forms of energy such as coal mine collapses or gas blasts or people falling off roofs during solar panel install are so common they happen multiple times a year worldwide.
Last edited by Gantz; 03-08-2022 at 09:05 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
