NationStates

Posted: **Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:16 am**

Regnum Dominae wrote:
NEO Rome Republic wrote:We waste time discussing irrelevant things, if you want to waste time listening to political correctness rather than laws, fine.
But I don't, it's ridiculous. But apparently, you want to turn this chamber into a comedy show.

No. Everyone else likes it this way. Stop whining, and stop trying to make the senate more dull.

No Senator, I just think there is a time and place for everything. Something you clearly don't understand.

Posted: **Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:17 am**

NEO Rome Republic wrote:
Regnum Dominae wrote:No. Everyone else likes it this way. Stop whining, and stop trying to make the senate more dull.

No Senator, I just think there is a time and place for everything. Something you clearly don't understand.

If anyone wanted to debate vaccinations or alcohol pricing they would. No one wants to and we have decided to debate nuclear power instead. Stop complaining about nothing.

Posted: **Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:20 am**

Regnum Dominae wrote:
NEO Rome Republic wrote:No Senator, I just think there is a time and place for everything. Something you clearly don't understand.

If anyone wanted to debate vaccinations or alcohol pricing they would. No one wants to and we have decided to debate nuclear power instead. Stop complaining about nothing.

Well if you guys were only debating, I wouldn't be complaining.
If you guys are debating nuclear power currently, then by all means, continue.
I'm still opposed to do the new changes, though.

Posted: **Mon Dec 30, 2013 1:37 pm**

Kamchastkia wrote:
Regnum Dominae wrote:People on NSG do claim that.

And the only reason chernobyl even happened is that the idiot Soviet managers decided to run a "safety test" in which the incompetent workers disabled all safety measures and purposely tried to get as close to meltdown as they could. Modern reactors have a negative void coefficient which means that they literally can not melt down.

Except when they do.

RBMK reactors like the ones in Chernobyl have a dangerously high positive void coefficient. Aurentina won't be using failed and discredited technology.

Posted: **Mon Dec 30, 2013 1:50 pm**

Geilinor wrote:
Kamchastkia wrote:Except when they do.

RBMK reactors like the ones in Chernobyl have a dangerously high positive void coefficient. Aurentina won't be using failed and discredited technology.

Because that's the only time meltdown has happened. :roll:

Posted: **Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:18 pm**

Kamchastkia wrote:
Geilinor wrote:RBMK reactors like the ones in Chernobyl have a dangerously high positive void coefficient. Aurentina won't be using failed and discredited technology.

Because that's the only time meltdown has happened.

You know that nuclear has by far the lowest death rate of any power source right?

Posted: **Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:41 pm**

Kamchastkia wrote:
Geilinor wrote:RBMK reactors like the ones in Chernobyl have a dangerously high positive void coefficient. Aurentina won't be using failed and discredited technology.

Because that's the only time meltdown has happened.

More often than not, it's not the generators fault but either 1. natural disasters or 2. gross mishandling.

Also, Nuclear power has the lowest death count of all power sources.

Posted: **Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm**

Lamaredia wrote:
Kamchastkia wrote:Because that's the only time meltdown has happened.

More often than not, it's not the generators fault but either 1. natural disasters or 2. gross mishandling.

Also, Nuclear power has the lowest death count of all power sources.

Nuclear energy is also cheap and clean right?

Posted: **Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:43 pm**

Corenea wrote:
Lamaredia wrote:More often than not, it's not the generators fault but either 1. natural disasters or 2. gross mishandling.

Also, Nuclear power has the lowest death count of all power sources.

Nuclear energy is also cheap and clean right?

Yes. It is also sustainable and the least deadly.

Posted: **Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:43 pm**

Corenea wrote:
Lamaredia wrote:More often than not, it's not the generators fault but either 1. natural disasters or 2. gross mishandling.

Also, Nuclear power has the lowest death count of all power sources.

Nuclear energy is also cheap and clean right?

Yes.

Posted: **Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:47 pm**

Corenea wrote:
Lamaredia wrote:More often than not, it's not the generators fault but either 1. natural disasters or 2. gross mishandling.

Also, Nuclear power has the lowest death count of all power sources.

Nuclear energy is also cheap and clean right?

It is yes. With the new reactors you can reuse the nuclear materials that are over several times, so that the time that it takes for the material to disappear is cut effectively by a magnitude of thousands.

Posted: **Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:48 pm**

Lamaredia wrote:
Corenea wrote:Nuclear energy is also cheap and clean right?

It is yes. With the new reactors you can reuse the nuclear materials that are over several times, so that the time that it takes for the material to disappear is cut effectively by a magnitude of thousands.

Holy crap, we just agreed on something again.

I support nuclear energy but I wonder the efficiency and cost of solar energy

Posted: **Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:50 pm**

If someone could tell me Aurentina's current breakdown of energy sources I can calculate how many lives we would save each year by replacing fossil fuels with nuclear.

Posted: **Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:51 pm**

Corenea wrote:
Lamaredia wrote:It is yes. With the new reactors you can reuse the nuclear materials that are over several times, so that the time that it takes for the material to disappear is cut effectively by a magnitude of thousands.

Holy crap, we just agreed on something again.

I support nuclear energy but I wonder the efficiency and cost of solar energy

Solar is good for rooftop and as an extra source but is terrible as a base load.

Posted: **Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:51 pm**

Corenea wrote:
Lamaredia wrote:It is yes. With the new reactors you can reuse the nuclear materials that are over several times, so that the time that it takes for the material to disappear is cut effectively by a magnitude of thousands.

Holy crap, we just agreed on something again.

Corenea wrote:I support nuclear energy but I wonder the efficiency and cost of solar energy

It would be efficient if we were to say plant a lot of them in Sahara. That way we could (theoretically) produce enough electricity for most of the world. But there comes the cost. They cost an arseload to produce, and for it then to be transported would cost even more.

Posted: **Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:53 pm**

Regnum Dominae wrote:
Kamchastkia wrote:Because that's the only time meltdown has happened.

You know that nuclear has by far the lowest death rate of any power source right?

Solar power has killed SO MANY PEOPLE! My god!

Posted: **Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:55 pm**

Kamchastkia wrote:
Regnum Dominae wrote:You know that nuclear has by far the lowest death rate of any power source right?

Solar power has killed SO MANY PEOPLE! My god!

Solar has 0.44 deaths per twh. Nuclear has 0.04 deaths per twh.

And we cannot power the world on solar alone. Too expensive and cannot be scaled up fast enough.

Posted: **Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:56 pm**

Kamchastkia wrote:
Regnum Dominae wrote:You know that nuclear has by far the lowest death rate of any power source right?

Solar power has killed SO MANY PEOPLE! My god!

Including solar power. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

Posted: **Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:57 pm**

Regnum Dominae wrote:
Kamchastkia wrote:Solar power has killed SO MANY PEOPLE! My god!

Solar has 0.44 deaths per twh. Nuclear has 0.04 deaths per twh.

And we cannot power the world on solar alone. Too expensive and cannot be scaled up fast enough.

That is all.

Posted: **Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:57 pm**

Regnum Dominae wrote:
Kamchastkia wrote:Solar power has killed SO MANY PEOPLE! My god!

Solar has 0.44 deaths per twh. Nuclear has 0.04 deaths per twh.

And we cannot power the world on solar alone. Too expensive and cannot be scaled up fast enough.

This^. Solar power is also not practical everywhere. Aurentina is a densely populated country, they'd have to be installed on rooftops. Huge fields of solar panels won't fit.

Posted: **Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:59 pm**

Kamchastkia wrote:
Regnum Dominae wrote:Solar has 0.44 deaths per twh. Nuclear has 0.04 deaths per twh.

And we cannot power the world on solar alone. Too expensive and cannot be scaled up fast enough.

That is all.

You can't even bother to even try to refute the facts? (Even though you can't disprove it)

0.40 more deaths per twh is pretty large you know.

Also, it's expensive as fuck.

Posted: **Mon Dec 30, 2013 3:01 pm**

Lamaredia wrote:
Kamchastkia wrote: That is all.

You can't even bother to even try to refute the facts? (Even though you can't disprove it)

0.40 more deaths per twh is pretty large you know.

Also, it's expensive as fuck.

I don't know why Kam always resorts to calling the numbers stupid instead of providing alternate statistics.

Posted: **Mon Dec 30, 2013 3:03 pm**

Lamaredia wrote:
Kamchastkia wrote: That is all.

You can't even bother to even try to refute the facts? (Even though you can't disprove it)

0.40 more deaths per twh is pretty large you know.

Also, it's expensive as fuck.

I would advise the senator to watch his language and conduct the appropriate decorum in this chamber...

Posted: **Mon Dec 30, 2013 3:03 pm**

Lamaredia wrote:
Kamchastkia wrote: That is all.

You can't even bother to even try to refute the facts? (Even though you can't disprove it)

0.40 more deaths per twh is pretty large you know.

Also, it's expensive as fuck.

I just found it humorous that that many people die from sun-based power.

Posted: **Mon Dec 30, 2013 3:04 pm**

Kamchastkia wrote:
Lamaredia wrote:You can't even bother to even try to refute the facts? (Even though you can't disprove it)

0.40 more deaths per twh is pretty large you know.

Also, it's expensive as fuck.

I just found it humorous that that many people die from sun-based power.

Clarification next time. It gets confusing when one doesn't mention what they are laughing at.

NationStates

NSG Senate Chamber [NSG Senate] - Version 4