Well this is awkward
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
16 comments displayed.
#1
-
joeyliquid (11/23/2015) [-] Don't worry. I have similar thoughts, the only difference is I slightly care because if it does get warmer it'll mean my PC will run slightly higher and it barely handles fallout as it is.
#3
-
monkeylord ONLINE (11/23/2015) [-] >not worried about global warming
******* Christ man if the water floods to much it'll end before the nukes hit, There can be no NCR if California shares the same sea level as Atlantis.
******* Christ man if the water floods to much it'll end before the nukes hit, There can be no NCR if California shares the same sea level as Atlantis.
#4
-
theonewhoanswers (11/24/2015) [-] Save the climate! It's too warm!
"what about nuclear energy?"
Ew, no thanks.
"what about nuclear energy?"
Ew, no thanks.
#7 to #4
-
bakinboy ONLINE (11/24/2015) [-] there just isnt enough uranium on earth for it to be used as the main power source with current methods.
power plants have to get rid of their nuclear waste when it is still 98% radioactive.
so unless a method that is more than 2% efficient is found for power production, nuclear fission isnt really viable
power plants have to get rid of their nuclear waste when it is still 98% radioactive.
so unless a method that is more than 2% efficient is found for power production, nuclear fission isnt really viable
#8 to #7
-
theonewhoanswers (11/24/2015) [-] Right, I understand that but Uranium isn't the main ingredient, and there are ways being researched that with backing can come to fruition in our life times. So many people dismiss it as a weapon that has no other use that they push it under the rug. Nuclear energy can be a viable source but nobody wants to fully transition.
#9 to #8
-
bakinboy ONLINE (11/24/2015) [-] A: uranium isnt the main ingredient???????
it is literally the only "ingredient".
it is responsible for the fission that heats up the water for the steam turbines. the graphite rods are just to keep the reactor from overheating.
B: theoretical and research doesnt mean it can be applied yet. Nuclear research is hard, expensive, and time consuming.
Fusion was supposed to be one of those " future viable sources" of nuclear energy. people have been saying its only 10 years away from fruition the past 40 years.
fact is, until it actually exists and can be applied commercially, it cant be applied to the argument of transitioning to nuclear energy at the technological level it is today.
C: as it stands, with the current method of nuclear fission used and the insane inefficiency of utilizing the uranium (having to dump it after only using 2%), nuclear energy is not a viable main source of power, all the uranium in the world would be depleted in 9 years.
it is literally the only "ingredient".
it is responsible for the fission that heats up the water for the steam turbines. the graphite rods are just to keep the reactor from overheating.
B: theoretical and research doesnt mean it can be applied yet. Nuclear research is hard, expensive, and time consuming.
Fusion was supposed to be one of those " future viable sources" of nuclear energy. people have been saying its only 10 years away from fruition the past 40 years.
fact is, until it actually exists and can be applied commercially, it cant be applied to the argument of transitioning to nuclear energy at the technological level it is today.
C: as it stands, with the current method of nuclear fission used and the insane inefficiency of utilizing the uranium (having to dump it after only using 2%), nuclear energy is not a viable main source of power, all the uranium in the world would be depleted in 9 years.
#10 to #9
-
MonkeyFinger (11/24/2015) [-] 1) Thorium is an alternative to uranium.
2) We only have a minutely small collection of climate data. Examination of the fossil records demonstrates that there are major swings in our "normal" climate. So what is the actual normal climate with which we are comparing our current data. The ice caps have melted and glaciers have covered the earth all before man was around with our emissions. Climate change is therefore inevitable. What we need to focus on is how to adapt to the changing climate and how we can stop poisoning our natural resources.
2) We only have a minutely small collection of climate data. Examination of the fossil records demonstrates that there are major swings in our "normal" climate. So what is the actual normal climate with which we are comparing our current data. The ice caps have melted and glaciers have covered the earth all before man was around with our emissions. Climate change is therefore inevitable. What we need to focus on is how to adapt to the changing climate and how we can stop poisoning our natural resources.
#11 to #10
-
bakinboy ONLINE (11/24/2015) [-] the thorium reactors are still just hypothetical, so that doesnt apply to the argument of switching to nuclear today.
-there is a lot of climate data. climate data can be measured down to the century of the past 20,000 years from ice in the arctic. and even more so for modern day climate change
your #2 doesnt even make sense
-there is a lot of climate data. climate data can be measured down to the century of the past 20,000 years from ice in the arctic. and even more so for modern day climate change
your #2 doesnt even make sense
#12 to #11
-
MonkeyFinger (11/24/2015) [-] If by theoretical you mean there is one in Norway... thorenergy.no/
I was just pointing out your fallacy that there is in fact an alternative to Uranium and that is Thorium. Norway has one, China, Japan, and others are working on one.
My #2 makes sense if you ever studied the geological record.
I was just pointing out your fallacy that there is in fact an alternative to Uranium and that is Thorium. Norway has one, China, Japan, and others are working on one.
My #2 makes sense if you ever studied the geological record.
