Less than the amount of people that would die from another nuclear disaster. All I did was provide substantial justification why nuclear power would not work and why it hasn’t worked in the past. And nuclear power cars? I don’t mean to be rude or anything, but doesn’t the first post say lets be realistic. I can see how we can have nuclear powered cars but this will never happen. Every car accident is a nuclear explosion; just what we need in todays society. As for myself being president, I don’t think I would be able to handle the job because I would crack under the power.
I’d spend more on the research of fusion. Feul for fusion is plentiful and you don’t have to worry about about meltdowns. I recently saw something in the paper about getting fusion to occur at much lower temperatures (it’s not cold fusion, something that actually exists). The only problems we have with fusion now are creating it on a scale that makes it productive.
I’m not like them, but I can pretend.
The sun is gone, but I have light.
The day is done, but I’m having fun.
I think I’m dumb, or maybe just happy.
~Dumb, Nirvana
[ This Message was edited by: bossk on 2002-05-10 18:08 ]
Fussion is a good call. I am not too sure of the details of fussion but it seems more probable than alot of other energy solutions. I have also read/heard (can’t remember at this time) about the fussion occuring at lower temperatures. How cost effective is it though and are there any major drawbacks?
Now, I don’t mean a nuclear reactor powering your car, but how about some kind of Battery, able to be recharged at a nuclear type gas station?
Nuclear energy is not that old. Give it a chance to grow.
Nuclear energy has been around since WWII. I guess I cannot fathom a nuclear battery and nuclear gas stations. Nuclear reactors work with heat to create the energy. If heat is producing the energy, then what if you over heat. Chernobyl overheated and blew up. Too many predicaments can be caused by nuclear power; that is why it probably won’t be in cars.
Since WWII? Wow, a whole 60 years! Other forms of energy have been around for thousands of years and are still not perfected.
Today a Nuclear Reactor requires great heat, causes raditation, ect, but 50 years from now? Maybe not.
Good point. Time can change alot, but it doesn’t seem like anyone is working on the problem. Do you have any evidence that nuclear energy is advancing?
There are fusion power reactors. The only problem is that it costs more energy to get it going than you get from it. The trick is to make it efficient.
Are there any other solutions to the current energy crisis we have? I don’t understand why solar power never really caught on.
Unsteady supply of small amounts of power that takes up a lot of land. However, an interesting variant is microwave power, where a sattelite gathers solar energy and beams it down to earth.
Solar works okay like in a flashlight/ radio
Ill have to look into that; it sounds more expensive than nuclear power.
It’d be renewable though
Biomass and Nuclear are really the only viable alternatives to fossil fuels as of today.
The Government has turned many nuclear bomb researches into nuclear power researchers in the last few years. Quite a few advancements have been made.
fusion power is closer then you think. the next exparimental fusion power plant (called idin) is going to be built in a few years. they chose the location next year. so far in the running are canada, japan and france the US droped out a wile ago.
fusion power is vary cheap it only costs 34 cents to extract enough tritium from heavy water to prodose the same amount of elecctricity as 30,000 gallons of gas. and the waste is heliem.
but fusion requires a large amount of energy to maintain, thats why canada is such a good choise for the idin, which i belive is a tomomak reactor(shaped like donut)becase we can put it right next to a Candu reactor (fistion reactor).
but once fution is working it becomes vary cheap. but countyrs like the Us will probable not adopt it right away for the same reson why there is still so much homeless in the states…. there is no money in it. and the bottom line is all the capitilist cares about
I guess I don’t understand why the U.S wouldn’t adopt it if it is efficient and it ends up paying for itself. Wouldn’t that be the reason the capitalists would adopt it. If there were absolutly no cons to fussion energy, then don’t you think it would be alot farther than it is now. If there are cons, what are they?
I didn’t know that they could even get tomahawks efficent enough to produce any amount of energy. That’s quite amazing.
Thats actually a good idea. Put a Nuclear Fission power plant next to a Nuclear Fusion plant. The Fission powers the Fusion, which in turn powers millions of homes. You could make the cost of electricity go down twentyfold.
Yanny, it all sounds good now, but you have to think of the cost. How much will one of these things cost to build. And will fission/fussion destroy the environment despite the fact that they happen naturally?
And how much will it costs when riots ensue in 30 years when we run out of oil?
Nuclear power is, by far, the cheapest form of energy.
Disagree. Nuclear power is very expensive.
Check some of these sites about nuclear power out:
Some of these might highlight pros as well, I didn’t have time to look.
