BF2S Forums How come no Canidate is discussing this? (nuclear power)

Spark wrote:

I'm not American, I know basically nothing about what goes on there outside the primaries and what's posted here.

Then wtf are you bitching at me about?

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

I support increased funding for the development and research of nuclear energy, but I am not going to trust something until it has been thoroughly researched and tested.

Good lord.  These things ARE thoroughly researched and tested.

usmarine wrote:

Spark wrote:

I'm not American, I know basically nothing about what goes on there outside the primaries and what's posted here.

Then wtf are you bitching at me about?

Notice how you used the word 'liberal', not democrat?

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

Then why haven't they been implemented yet?  I guess I'm sorry my knowledge on this topic is so dated.

Cost and lack of trust.  People just don't know how safe nuclear power really is.

SenorToenails wrote:

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

Then why haven't they been implemented yet?  I guess I'm sorry my knowledge on this topic is so dated.

Cost and lack of trust.  People just don't know how safe nuclear power really is.

Relentless in-your-face protests bereft of intellect, logic and a sound factual base from certain environmental groups don't help.

Spark wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

The MRI used to be the NMRI, but the word "Nuclear" was removed because of the negative connotation.

Cowards...

There are hundreds of reactors working 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for decades.

There has been one meltdown, and one partial meltdown, total.

I'd say that safety record is impeccable

The meltdown doesn't really count... Soviet tech ftl.

You are far, far, far more likely to die of radiation poisining in a coal mine or by living near coal fired powerstation than a nuclear powerstation. Really, the crazed notion that all nuclear reactors are going to someday go up in a uber-Hiroshima is plain dumb.

Did a research project on that very topic, coal radiation was somewhere on the order of 40,000 times that of nuclear.

SenorToenails wrote:

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

Then why haven't they been implemented yet?  I guess I'm sorry my knowledge on this topic is so dated.

Cost and lack of trust.  People just don't know how safe nuclear power really is.

Hmmm, that's exactly what my old science teacher said 6 years ago.  I thought that he was right, until I researched it.

S.Lythberg wrote:

Spark wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

Cowards...

There are hundreds of reactors working 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for decades.

There has been one meltdown, and one partial meltdown, total.

I'd say that safety record is impeccable

The meltdown doesn't really count... Soviet tech ftl.

You are far, far, far more likely to die of radiation poisining in a coal mine or by living near coal fired powerstation than a nuclear powerstation. Really, the crazed notion that all nuclear reactors are going to someday go up in a uber-Hiroshima is plain dumb.

Did a research project on that very topic, coal radiation was somewhere on the order of 40,000 times that of nuclear.

Yeah. Coal tends to be 'sticky' so all kinds of crap stick to it, and float around. While nuclear radiation from yellowcake (the main source of uranium) usually just sits harmlessly in the ground or in cans. It certainly doesn't get into the air.

rdx-fx wrote:

Coal is 'bioreactive'  (meaning that living organisms process it, eat it, are made of it).

The thyroid stores iodine which is what made I-129 so dangerous.  That is why it is so beneficial that modern reactors can change I-129 to Xe-130.

rdx-fx wrote:

Coal is also burnt, and (potentially) released into the atmosphere after burning, as carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide.  Including the radioactive isotopes of carbon.  Compared to uranium, which is alot more contained during it's use as a power source.

All currently used power sources have their plus and minus.  Just that nuclear power has more myths than substance in it's 'minus column'.

Exactly.

Personally, I think nuclear is the way to go for the countries that need it, such as the colder climatised areas like Scandanavia, Canada, Russia, Europe etc etc. For areas like the US, Mexico, Australia, NZ, Africa, Asia etc with places with okay space but sun, solar is the way to go.... or that other 'solar' alternative, where there are arched mirrors focusing the suns light and heat into a pipe, which has water in it. The water gets heated and moves along, powering a turbine. I wont search it, dunno where it is, but it was interesting.
But the thing about costs is, well, nuclear has the running costs, which are quite a lot, and then the purchase of uranium etc from mines. Solar is just the running cost to keep personel there to monitor etc, and the upfront payment for the panels....no fuel cost. Unfortunately, I dont think anyone is going solar soon, and we're living on oil for another 50 years, until we're forced to nuclear or solar power. Maybe a hybrid?
And also, the geo-thermal energy way was pretty ambitious, but they got it, and it is awesome. Great concept, only need a massive hole in the ground to the fires of the earth, and fill it with water, and the steam generates power. Quite impressive, if you ask me.
For nuclear waste dumping, Id say we could use old mines to keep the nuclear rods. That way, the mines arent just another massive hole in the ground....or we could use the Middle East. Another use for the ME when the oils gone, pay them to keep our nuclear rods and shit.

Also, keep in mind that you lose half the electricity generated through transport of the copper wires etc to homes.

So for nuclear energy, Im half half. Wait 'till the oils gone, then nuclear/solar. Saudi Arabia can pay.

Spark wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Spark wrote:

I'm not American, I know basically nothing about what goes on there outside the primaries and what's posted here.

Then wtf are you bitching at me about?

Notice how you used the word 'liberal', not democrat?

Same shit, different smell.

SenorToenails wrote:

Locoloki wrote:

lets put nuclear power in space and run wires down to the earth

would that work?

Short answer: No.

yeah, your right, i forget the wires would collapse under their own weight