Pages:
Author

Topic: NUCLEAR IS GREENEST TECHNOLOGY CLAIM 65 TOP BIOLOGISTS (Read 4210 times)

legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 1145
people in general fail to look at the bigger picture, and are instead only look at the big events related to an idea that is the determining factor for their opinion on their matter. a nice comparison: how many people doe from smoking every year? a quick google search shows its in the millions, annually. so why arent we paying more attention to that? because nothing "big" happens from smoking. theres no explosions, gunshots, whatever. just cancer. compare that to a hypothetical airplane that had an engine malfunction and crashed, resulting in the flashy death of maybe 100 people. suddenly, x manufacturer of those engines are literally the harbinger of death on earth.

Not only that. There is a lot of propaganda going on in the mainstream media, against the nuclear energy. If we thoroughly investigate about the groups which are indulging in these propaganda campaigns, then it will become clear that many of them are funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other nations which are opposed to green energy.
oil and all that, makes sense.

that aside, this is happening: http://inhabitat.com/worlds-largest-nuclear-fusion-reactor-set-to-go-online-later-this-month/
after 19 years of construction, the W7-X fusion reactor is set to be powered on later this month.
although this reactor wont be meant to be a reliable and sustainable source of energy, it will be testing a new design that will surpass the current limitations of nuclear fusion reactors. if this test proves successful in proving the theories behind the device, we should be looking at drastic changes in nuclear reactor design over the next 3 - 4 decades to make a model that will provide clean, consistent energy.


It is possible that we will see fusion reactors a lot faster.
http://news.mit.edu/2015/small-modular-efficient-fusion-plant-0810

Lockheed&martin are also saying something similiar.
legendary
Activity: 3752
Merit: 1217
This propaganda won't work in China. They are steaming ahead with nuclear power plants.

http://news.asiaone.com/news/asia/china-poised-speed-nuclear-power-investment

The development of nuclear power in China is set to gain momentum in the next five years as the country prepares to inject hundreds of billions of yuan into building nuclear plants.

More than 100 nuclear power plants will be put into operation by 2020, with a nationwide capacity tripling that of 2014 to reach 58 million kilowatts, the China Times reported, citing a draft for the 13th Five-Year Plan (2016-20).


One of the advantages in having a military dictatorship running the country. At least the Chinese should shut down their ultra-polluting coal fired power plants, and replace them with the nuclear energy plants. The only negative is that the Chinese doesn't have significant amount of Uranium reserves (unlike the case with coal).
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
people in general fail to look at the bigger picture, and are instead only look at the big events related to an idea that is the determining factor for their opinion on their matter. a nice comparison: how many people doe from smoking every year? a quick google search shows its in the millions, annually. so why arent we paying more attention to that? because nothing "big" happens from smoking. theres no explosions, gunshots, whatever. just cancer. compare that to a hypothetical airplane that had an engine malfunction and crashed, resulting in the flashy death of maybe 100 people. suddenly, x manufacturer of those engines are literally the harbinger of death on earth.

Not only that. There is a lot of propaganda going on in the mainstream media, against the nuclear energy. If we thoroughly investigate about the groups which are indulging in these propaganda campaigns, then it will become clear that many of them are funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other nations which are opposed to green energy.

A reminder (not directly linked to nuclear energy but...)
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2012/09/28/new-matt-damon-movie-funded-by-opec-member-country-trashes-american-oil-companies/

Useful idiot.

legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
This propaganda won't work in China.
Of course it won't work when people are suffocating from gases and unable to see the sunlight.

http://inhabitat.com/new-fake-sun-photo-shows-how-bad-beijings-pollution-problem-is/
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1000
people in general fail to look at the bigger picture, and are instead only look at the big events related to an idea that is the determining factor for their opinion on their matter. a nice comparison: how many people doe from smoking every year? a quick google search shows its in the millions, annually. so why arent we paying more attention to that? because nothing "big" happens from smoking. theres no explosions, gunshots, whatever. just cancer. compare that to a hypothetical airplane that had an engine malfunction and crashed, resulting in the flashy death of maybe 100 people. suddenly, x manufacturer of those engines are literally the harbinger of death on earth.

Not only that. There is a lot of propaganda going on in the mainstream media, against the nuclear energy. If we thoroughly investigate about the groups which are indulging in these propaganda campaigns, then it will become clear that many of them are funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other nations which are opposed to green energy.

This propaganda won't work in China. They are steaming ahead with nuclear power plants.

http://news.asiaone.com/news/asia/china-poised-speed-nuclear-power-investment

The development of nuclear power in China is set to gain momentum in the next five years as the country prepares to inject hundreds of billions of yuan into building nuclear plants.

More than 100 nuclear power plants will be put into operation by 2020, with a nationwide capacity tripling that of 2014 to reach 58 million kilowatts, the China Times reported, citing a draft for the 13th Five-Year Plan (2016-20).
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1043
:^)
people in general fail to look at the bigger picture, and are instead only look at the big events related to an idea that is the determining factor for their opinion on their matter. a nice comparison: how many people doe from smoking every year? a quick google search shows its in the millions, annually. so why arent we paying more attention to that? because nothing "big" happens from smoking. theres no explosions, gunshots, whatever. just cancer. compare that to a hypothetical airplane that had an engine malfunction and crashed, resulting in the flashy death of maybe 100 people. suddenly, x manufacturer of those engines are literally the harbinger of death on earth.

Not only that. There is a lot of propaganda going on in the mainstream media, against the nuclear energy. If we thoroughly investigate about the groups which are indulging in these propaganda campaigns, then it will become clear that many of them are funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other nations which are opposed to green energy.
oil and all that, makes sense.

that aside, this is happening: http://inhabitat.com/worlds-largest-nuclear-fusion-reactor-set-to-go-online-later-this-month/
after 19 years of construction, the W7-X fusion reactor is set to be powered on later this month.
although this reactor wont be meant to be a reliable and sustainable source of energy, it will be testing a new design that will surpass the current limitations of nuclear fusion reactors. if this test proves successful in proving the theories behind the device, we should be looking at drastic changes in nuclear reactor design over the next 3 - 4 decades to make a model that will provide clean, consistent energy.
legendary
Activity: 3752
Merit: 1217
people in general fail to look at the bigger picture, and are instead only look at the big events related to an idea that is the determining factor for their opinion on their matter. a nice comparison: how many people doe from smoking every year? a quick google search shows its in the millions, annually. so why arent we paying more attention to that? because nothing "big" happens from smoking. theres no explosions, gunshots, whatever. just cancer. compare that to a hypothetical airplane that had an engine malfunction and crashed, resulting in the flashy death of maybe 100 people. suddenly, x manufacturer of those engines are literally the harbinger of death on earth.

Not only that. There is a lot of propaganda going on in the mainstream media, against the nuclear energy. If we thoroughly investigate about the groups which are indulging in these propaganda campaigns, then it will become clear that many of them are funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other nations which are opposed to green energy.
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1043
:^)
This isn't news. It's been widely known for decades that nuclear energy is very, very green. The problem with nuclear energy is not the exhaust or output, it's with the damage that could be caused if the nuclear reactor leaks (like what happened in Japan a few years back.)

If the nuclear reactor leaks it makes the area surrounding the plant toxic...that's why this source of energy isn't used as widely as it could.

I agree that nuclear plants are not 100.0000% safe. Once in a decade or two, an accident can occur (such as Fukushima) and there is a chance of human casualties occurring as a result of it. But what about the other forms of energy? Every year hundreds of thousands of people die as a result of the atmospheric pollution caused by the coal-fired thermal power plants. And for comparison, how many people have lost their lives in nuclear accidents during the past 20 years?
people in general fail to look at the bigger picture, and are instead only look at the big events related to an idea that is the determining factor for their opinion on their matter. a nice comparison: how many people doe from smoking every year? a quick google search shows its in the millions, annually. so why arent we paying more attention to that? because nothing "big" happens from smoking. theres no explosions, gunshots, whatever. just cancer. compare that to a hypothetical airplane that had an engine malfunction and crashed, resulting in the flashy death of maybe 100 people. suddenly, x manufacturer of those engines are literally the harbinger of death on earth.
legendary
Activity: 3752
Merit: 1217
This isn't news. It's been widely known for decades that nuclear energy is very, very green. The problem with nuclear energy is not the exhaust or output, it's with the damage that could be caused if the nuclear reactor leaks (like what happened in Japan a few years back.)

If the nuclear reactor leaks it makes the area surrounding the plant toxic...that's why this source of energy isn't used as widely as it could.

I agree that nuclear plants are not 100.0000% safe. Once in a decade or two, an accident can occur (such as Fukushima) and there is a chance of human casualties occurring as a result of it. But what about the other forms of energy? Every year hundreds of thousands of people die as a result of the atmospheric pollution caused by the coal-fired thermal power plants. And for comparison, how many people have lost their lives in nuclear accidents during the past 20 years?
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
This isn't news. It's been widely known for decades that nuclear energy is very, very green. The problem with nuclear energy is not the exhaust or output, it's with the damage that could be caused if the nuclear reactor leaks (like what happened in Japan a few years back.)

If the nuclear reactor leaks it makes the area surrounding the plant toxic...that's why this source of energy isn't used as widely as it could.
legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
By the way, all RBMK reactors went through modernization after 1986 disaster happened. This resolved all known safety issues, so now these reactors are considered safe. On the other hand, export of this technology is forbidden due to international regulations because RBMK series can be modified to generate weapons grade plutonium. That's why there are no working RBMK reactors outside of exUSSR.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000
Chernoybl was a major disaster because of the design of the reactor - a design the US Nuclear Power industry NEVER used. I think Hanford might have used that design on 1 or 2 of their first "production" reactors in the 1940s for making plutonium bomb material, and the test reactor at the University of Chicago was an even more primitive version of the same. I've never understood why the Soviets used that design for a power reactor, and consider them very lucky to have only had ONE accident with them.

This is the reason:

"By using a minimalist design that used regular (light) water for cooling and graphite for moderation, it was possible to use natural uranium for fuel (instead of the considerably more expensive enriched uranium). This allowed for an extraordinarily large and powerful reactor that was also cheap enough to be built in large numbers and simple enough to be maintained and operated by local personnel."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK
legendary
Activity: 3752
Merit: 1217
Along with uranium, thorium deposits are practically end less source of energy. But unfortunately, this industry won't get approval from coal & oil oligarchs. They would prefer to continue poisoning us with mercury and other heavy metals. And their lapdogs, such as Greenpeace sluts, will continue to serve their interests.

These Greenpeace fucks are the biggest hypocrites in the world. They say that they are pro-environment, and at the same time they are diametrically opposed to the greenest form of energy and want to kill millions of people every year by putting up new thermal, oil and gas power plants. They mst be getting good funding from the OPEC.
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1043
:^)
Thorium - World's Powerful Stuff They Don't Want You to Know (Documentary & Discovery HD Channel)

Does not operate at high pressure and is self regulating and shuts itself down Its so energy dense its more efficient that Coal by factors of 1000 000 and uranium by factors of 100


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BcHx_9DMcc&list=LL2SUmeAzu4qXRc5uQe4eZCw&index=1

Along with uranium, thorium deposits are practically end less source of energy. But unfortunately, this industry won't get approval from coal & oil oligarchs.


at least not until its absolutely, beyond any lunatic's doubt, that coal and oil are running out (likely within years when this decision will come to pass) and wont be able to sustain human society for more than a few more years. wont even matter much then, as when the fossil fuel resources start running dry, most of the big players in coal and oil will be dying of old age (~25 - 30 years into the future).

by the time nuclear power research gets the backing it needs, we'll be on the brink of collapse due to energy needs.
legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1359
Thorium - World's Powerful Stuff They Don't Want You to Know (Documentary & Discovery HD Channel)

Does not operate at high pressure and is self regulating and shuts itself down Its so energy dense its more efficient that Coal by factors of 1000 000 and uranium by factors of 100


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BcHx_9DMcc&list=LL2SUmeAzu4qXRc5uQe4eZCw&index=1

Along with uranium, thorium deposits are practically end less source of energy. But unfortunately, this industry won't get approval from coal & oil oligarchs. They would prefer to continue poisoning us with mercury and other heavy metals. And their lapdogs, such as Greenpeace sluts, will continue to serve their interests.
legendary
Activity: 3752
Merit: 1217
If the waste is properly stored, then nuclear energy is the cheapest and the greenest form of energy available to the humans. Let's compare the other options:

1. Hydropower: Cheap. But destroys the local ecology, and causes large-scale deforestation and climate change.
2. Coal: Cheap. But causes huge amounts of atmospheric pollution and acid rain.
3. Solar: Expensive and produces huge amounts of toxic waste products (during the construction of the panels).
4. Wind: Expensive, but green.
5. Gas / Oil: Expensive and causes pollution / global warming.
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1043
:^)
How fucking dumb are you!? Fukishima reaction is still GOING, poluted and poisining marine life... We dont control it, never have, we just use it like the foolish monkeys we are, also research the leaking radioactivity ALL OVER the globe, it isnt safe, it shall never be safe, wind and sun is all we need, please research...
the problem with wind and solar energy is, farms take up a lot of space, and natural energy alone wont be enough to sustain human society's energy needs. accidents such as fukushima and chernobyl are bound to happen, but that's because the technology isnt perfected yet; give nuclear energy research the funding and support it needs, and we might be oil-free within two decades with natural energy sources as a  supplement.
legendary
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
BTC | LTC | XLM | VEN | ARDR
How fucking dumb are you!? Fukishima reaction is still GOING, poluted and poisining marine life... We dont control it, never have, we just use it like the foolish monkeys we are, also research the leaking radioactivity ALL OVER the globe, it isnt safe, it shall never be safe, wind and sun is all we need, please research...
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1043
:^)
This is actually what Greenpeace lovers never understands.
Nuclear might be dangerous I understand but it does not spread pollution for sure.
thats mostly because of the stigma that is associated with the word "nuclear;" the first thing that comes to mind after hearing that word is likely "bomb." add in that the general population is not only uneducated, but ignorant, and its clear innovative ideas such as nuclear power wont get the backing they should have anytime soon. quite unfortunate considering our main sources of energy (oil, coal) are due to run out in a few decades. however, as for the second part of your statement, nuclear energy, as great as it can be, is not foolproof yet. accidents can happen, and the problem of managing nuclear waste from power plants is still a question that needs to be solved without extensive contamination from waste products.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
That nuclear power is 'greener' than fossil fuels is not in doubt, nor is the idea that nuclear could sustain rising energy demand
Pages:
Jump to: