LoginRegister
Nintendo Wii / Wii U Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 47
  1. #1
    Anglophobiphile Brawny's Avatar
    Member #
    8228
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    Posts
    6,546
    Friends
    24
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]
    5385-4035-7079-0395

    Alternative Energy Sources

    Too Slow: To have any significant impact on greenhouse emissions, 100s of new nuclear reactors would have to be built. Each reactor takes about 15 years to plan & Construct, which is too late in teh race against global warming.

    Too Expensive: Each reactor costs several billion dollars to construct and operate. This money would be diveted away from much more effective, safe & timely greenhouse reduction measures. Renewable energy sources are increasingly cost effective & cheaper than nuclear power. For the same investment, wind power generates 5 times as many jobs as nuclear power.

    Too Ineffective: Nuclear power is not an effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Energy efficiency measures deliver almost 7 times greater reductions in greenhouse emissions per dollar invested than nuclear power.

    Too Expensive: Nuclear weapons are but one of the by products of a Nuclear industry. If you have the reactor, you have the ability to have a bomb. The risk of water contamination is very high at the uranium mining stage of the nuclear feul cycle. Rio Tinto's Ranger uranium mine in the Kakadu National park has troubled history with over 120 documented incidents, spills & leaks since it opened in 1981. Workers were recently exposes to drinking and washing water with uranium levels 400 times greater than the maximum Australian safety standard. The contamination - and a subsequent seperate leak of around 150,000 litres of contaminated water into a creek system of Kakadu World Heritage listed wetlands - saw the mine temporarily shutdown.

    Too Thirsty: Australia is one of the driest continents on earth and water is scarce and valuble. "The water requirements for a nuclear power station can vary between 20 to 83% more than for other power stations." (Australia Dept. of Parliamentary services). Every stage of the nuclear feul cycle requires vast amounts of water, for example, BHP Billitons Olympic Dam mine in South Australia (my state) is the largest industrial user of water in the southern hemisphere.
    Alright...I'm in school at the moment, so you guys discuss!

  2. Ads


  3. #2
    Bringer of BOTTOM!! DBloke's Avatar
    WiiChat Moderator
    Member #
    228
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Super Mancyland
    Posts
    18,889
    Friends
    33
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]
    8041-7231-3447-6164
    Yeah lets fill Australia with nucler power plants

    Or Nucler powerd plants that eat people


    Meh
    Them big windmills seem good
    And they only place them off the coast


    You new? See this!
    W
    ii U FAQ

    Spoiler Alert!

    @D_Bloke - My inane prattle


  4. #3
    Anglophobiphile Brawny's Avatar
    Member #
    8228
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    Posts
    6,546
    Friends
    24
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]
    5385-4035-7079-0395
    First, all power plants use the same generators... They ALL have water. The only reason nuclear needs more is because it produces exponentially more power. I'm a bit biased, as I live in Michigan, but all the water used is in a closed loop and the transfer water is routed back into the source.

    Now, back to Government class. mehhhhhh

  5. #4
    WiiChat Member Bliss's Avatar
    Member #
    32974
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,532
    Friends
    29
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]
    0000-0000-0000-0000
    If you have the reactor, you have the ability to have a bomb. The risk of water contamination is very high at the uranium mining stage of the nuclear feul cycle.
    I think that says it all right there on how i feel about it....Solar is so much better....we are lookin to make the world BETTER, not destroy it even more.

  6. #5
    ? Jay588's Avatar
    Member #
    33986
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    781
    Friends
    0
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]
    personally dont really care what types of energy we use, the world has to evolve in technology and this is how we learn from the better or mistakes, its gonna happen, but on the other hand it would suck if radiation somehow escapes and people suffer for cheap energy, thats pretty selfish and just plain wrong. i say let the world go round and one day(not in our time) our planet will be as advanced as the aliens.....(jk)

    (or am i?)

  7. #6
    Bringer of BOTTOM!! DBloke's Avatar
    WiiChat Moderator
    Member #
    228
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Super Mancyland
    Posts
    18,889
    Friends
    33
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]
    8041-7231-3447-6164
    Quote Originally Posted by Bliss
    I think that says it all right there on how i feel about it....Solar is so much better....we are lookin to make the world BETTER, not destroy it even more.
    Solar panels in my home town


    You new? See this!
    W
    ii U FAQ

    Spoiler Alert!

    @D_Bloke - My inane prattle


  8. #7
    ...:..:..:..:..:.. el-zilcho's Avatar
    Member #
    34441
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    the cellar
    Posts
    608
    Friends
    0
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]
    2889-0567-4141-1338
    Well the quetion really is : How can we maintain our current (global) lifestyle before the consequences of its effects actually force us to change the way we live .
    When really , if we all as individuals used and consumed less and were more resposible , that would be an unbelievable start and maybe give us a better chance to develop the technologies to utilise green energy sources properlly .


    We all seem to want a quick fix that doesnt mean changing or putting any real effort in .

    I dont think nuclear power is the right way forward .
    ____________________________________
    Spoiler Alert!

  9. #8
    Senior Member Napalmbrain's Avatar
    Member #
    43
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    4,286
    Friends
    15
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]
    I think nuclear power is totally the way to go. As long as the radioactive waste is disposed of properly, it's a lot less damaging to the environment than fossil fuels. And the chances of another Chernobyl these days is quite low now they have better safety procedures. And if they ever manage to get sustained nuclear fusion to work, then that would be even better.



    I never add friend codes.

    Quote Originally Posted by AndThen?
    @ROB64 - The longer you spend on this forum, the more you realise that Napalmbrain knows a lot about everything.


  10. #9
    ...:..:..:..:..:.. el-zilcho's Avatar
    Member #
    34441
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    the cellar
    Posts
    608
    Friends
    0
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]
    2889-0567-4141-1338
    Quote Originally Posted by Napalmbrain
    the chances of another Chernobyl these days is quite low

    yeah but is that chance worth taking . If nuclear energy plants become common and widespead then the chances of another and more destructive chernobyl like incident happening surely increases ,
    ____________________________________
    Spoiler Alert!

  11. #10
    Bringer of BOTTOM!! DBloke's Avatar
    WiiChat Moderator
    Member #
    228
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Super Mancyland
    Posts
    18,889
    Friends
    33
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]
    8041-7231-3447-6164
    Place power plant in a place that nobody likes
    Like blackpool


    You new? See this!
    W
    ii U FAQ

    Spoiler Alert!

    @D_Bloke - My inane prattle


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Ads

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts