The Power of the Atom.

[Saint Kitten]

You know of global warming correct?

What does this have to do with anything? Yes, of course.

And you realize fossil fuels are a major contributor to that correct?

[Anachronous Rex]

What does this have to do with anything? Yes, of course.

And you realize fossil fuels are a major contributor to that correct?

I have no idea where people get this idea I support fossil fuels.

Please actually read the things the person you're arguing with says.

[Blakk Metal]

We need more blue power, not only nuclear fission and fusion, but also black hole power and monopole power.

Just make sure to shove them way into the OP's family*.

*It's a California redneck reference. You wouldn't get it.

[Toronina]

No, there are a few power sources which probably produce the same amount of energy. Sure the reactor might have a low chance at failing. But remember, Chernobyl in Ukraine will not be inhabitable until the year 20000 because of the nuclear power plant disaster, it's just to risky

[Regnum Dominae]

No, there are a few power sources which probably produce the same amount of energy. Sure the reactor might have a low chance at failing. But remember, Chernobyl in Ukraine will not be inhabitable until the year 20000 because of the nuclear power plant disaster, it's just to risky

Too risky? Nuclear power has caused fewer deaths per unit energy than any other power source.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths ... ource.html

It's even saved an estimated 1.8 million lives.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013 ... auses.html

[Anachronous Rex]

No, there are a few power sources which probably produce the same amount of energy. Sure the reactor might have a low chance at failing. But remember, Chernobyl in Ukraine will not be inhabitable until the year 20000 because of the nuclear power plant disaster, it's just to risky

This is more an argument against Russian engineering then against nuclear power.

[Grenartia]

I'm just saying that they should be far away from people as a 'just in case' thing. I'm not saying that living near to a nuclear power plant has negative effects in itself, but if something goes terribly wrong, then you won't wanna be nearby.

There are currently 440 nuclear power plants in existence.

If you want all land within, say, 20 miles of a plant to not be used, you're wasting 8,800 square miles of land on the off chance that something akin to "purposefully blowing up a reactor" (which is what happened in Ukraine) happens. That's a lot of fucking land for no real gain.

Why no real gain, you ask?

Nuclear plants have been active since 1951. Three times since then, one has melted down. There are 440 nuclear power plants. It has been 61 years since plants started operating. Combined, all plants have been operating for an average of 24,000 years. That equates to roughly 8,760,000 (eight million seven hundred sixty thousand) days of operation. Three of those days contain fatal errors. One of them we can discount because they were trying to make it melt down.

So the chances of ANY nuclear power plant melting down on any given day is roughly one in 4,380,000, or a 0.000002 percent chance. Not worth, in my opinion, sacrificing almost nine thousand square miles of land.

The only three nuclear power related issues I can recall are Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island. And I'm fairly sure that nobody died from TMI. So, since we've removed Chernobyl from the equation, that only leaves Fukushima. Somewhere, either you missed something, or I did.

but with more investment it could be.. and there have been reactors made for the cold fusion process.. but you know.. great people that discover great things such as nikola tesla, end up like.. well, nikola tesla

Shoveling money at unreproducible and fatally flawed experiments isn't going to change the laws of physics to make cold fusion magically work.

GOOD NEWS, EVERYONE!

I've shoveled $10 gaztribillion googolplex into unbalanced wheels as a method of power generation, so we now have FREE ENERGY!

lmao really?.. oOoooOoo yes they go so straight into the sky! so magical.. no sh#t they don't and if we really wanted to 1. we could make it to any location is this system.. imagine if all the worlds space programs worked together? 2. look at the ISS for example? imagine that in it's full potiential

1. When you say we, do you mean humans, or just space programs?

2. That's like saying "You see this cardboard box? There could be ANYTHING inside!" then not giving examples.

It could even be a boat!

1. When you say we, do you mean humans, or just space programs?

2. That's like saying "You see this cardboard box? There could be ANYTHING inside!" then not giving examples.

and why not be optimistic of all possibilities? i will always think that schoedinger's cat will come out alive lol it's just the way i see things

First, please, grammar and punctuation, learn them.

Second, there's realistic optimism, and then there's unrealistic expectations. I'll give you a hint: with such an open-ended statement as "imagine the ISS in its full potential", you're well into the territory of the latter, and not the former.

Third, Schrodinger's Cat is not a scientific injoke for the "glass half empty/half full" dichotomy.

lol you said that the things i was saying are incomprehensible..

but your questions have no real goal do they?

Behold!

The Dunning-Kruger Effect.

I really hate that effect. Makes trying to have an intellectually honest debate so much harder. Especially when people who "suffer" (for lack of a better term) from it start rejecting known facts with "lolzitsfakebecuzliebruhlbias".

[Regnum Dominae]

There are currently 440 nuclear power plants in existence.

If you want all land within, say, 20 miles of a plant to not be used, you're wasting 8,800 square miles of land on the off chance that something akin to "purposefully blowing up a reactor" (which is what happened in Ukraine) happens. That's a lot of fucking land for no real gain.

Why no real gain, you ask?

Nuclear plants have been active since 1951. Three times since then, one has melted down. There are 440 nuclear power plants. It has been 61 years since plants started operating. Combined, all plants have been operating for an average of 24,000 years. That equates to roughly 8,760,000 (eight million seven hundred sixty thousand) days of operation. Three of those days contain fatal errors. One of them we can discount because they were trying to make it melt down.

So the chances of ANY nuclear power plant melting down on any given day is roughly one in 4,380,000, or a 0.000002 percent chance. Not worth, in my opinion, sacrificing almost nine thousand square miles of land.

The only three nuclear power related issues I can recall are Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island. And I'm fairly sure that nobody died from TMI. So, since we've removed Chernobyl from the equation, that only leaves Fukushima. Somewhere, either you missed something, or I did.

Bezombia may have been referring to the Kyshtym disaster.

[Quintium]

Atomic power, atomic power
Was given by the mighty hand of God
Atomic power, atomic power
It was given by the mighty hand of God

[Aeken]

As long as we can keep the plant cool and secure, nuclear power's fine. But of course, research should be put into other, more powerful energy sources.

[Regnum Dominae]

As long as we can keep the plant cool and secure, nuclear power's fine. But of course, research should be put into other, more powerful energy sources.

Like fusion?

I totally agree.

[Aeken]

As long as we can keep the plant cool and secure, nuclear power's fine. But of course, research should be put into other, more powerful energy sources.

Like fusion?

I totally agree.

Oh yes. Fusion is what I'm hoping can be developed in the near future.

[DesAnges]

There are currently 440 nuclear power plants in existence.

If you want all land within, say, 20 miles of a plant to not be used, you're wasting 8,800 square miles of land on the off chance that something akin to "purposefully blowing up a reactor" (which is what happened in Ukraine) happens. That's a lot of fucking land for no real gain.

Why no real gain, you ask?

Nuclear plants have been active since 1951. Three times since then, one has melted down. There are 440 nuclear power plants. It has been 61 years since plants started operating. Combined, all plants have been operating for an average of 24,000 years. That equates to roughly 8,760,000 (eight million seven hundred sixty thousand) days of operation. Three of those days contain fatal errors. One of them we can discount because they were trying to make it melt down.

So the chances of ANY nuclear power plant melting down on any given day is roughly one in 4,380,000, or a 0.000002 percent chance. Not worth, in my opinion, sacrificing almost nine thousand square miles of land.

The only three nuclear power related issues I can recall are Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island. And I'm fairly sure that nobody died from TMI. So, since we've removed Chernobyl from the equation, that only leaves Fukushima. Somewhere, either you missed something, or I did.

The Windscale fire in '57 in Cumbria was a 5, same as TMI. Fukushima and Chernobyl were both 7s, and the only one that was actually an accident and not the Soviets saying "OOH LOOK A BIG SHINY RED BUTTON WHAT DOES THAT DO" was Fukushima.

[Maineiacs]

but with more investment it could be.. and there have been reactors made for the cold fusion process.. but you know.. great people that discover great things such as nikola tesla, end up like.. well, nikola tesla

No, you see: it is probably impossible.

Fusion itself, however, has much promise.

If we can just figure out how to do it.

[Central and Eastern Visayas]

As long as we can keep the plant cool and secure, nuclear power's fine. But of course, research should be put into other, more powerful energy sources.

Like fusion?

I totally agree.

We need only solve the attendant impracticalities when accounting for current-era technology.

[Indira]

Certainly. We need clean energy and nuclear is the way to go.

[Grenartia]

The only three nuclear power related issues I can recall are Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island. And I'm fairly sure that nobody died from TMI. So, since we've removed Chernobyl from the equation, that only leaves Fukushima. Somewhere, either you missed something, or I did.

Bezombia may have been referring to the Kyshtym disaster.

Possibly.

The only three nuclear power related issues I can recall are Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island. And I'm fairly sure that nobody died from TMI. So, since we've removed Chernobyl from the equation, that only leaves Fukushima. Somewhere, either you missed something, or I did.

The Windscale fire in '57 in Cumbria was a 5, same as TMI. Fukushima and Chernobyl were both 7s, and the only one that was actually an accident and not the Soviets saying "OOH LOOK A BIG SHINY RED BUTTON WHAT DOES THAT DO" was Fukushima.

I know about how big of a fuckup Chernobyl was, and how it shouldn't really be classified as an accident.

[Nazis in Space]

First thing that came to mind.

We need more nuclear insects~

[Slafstopia]

What does this have to do with anything? Yes, of course.

And you realize fossil fuels are a major contributor to that correct?

Yes. Hence, I don't support fossil fuels. Like I've already said twice.

[The IASM]

Lots of Thorium reactors would be good.

[New Panti]

Nuclear meltdowns and accidents are caused by negligence and stupidity, or in the case of Fukushima, a earthquake and tsunami. That fact that some European countries are abandoning nuclear power over a nuclear accident caused by natural disasters is appalling to me. Nuclear energy is a clean and sustainable future.

[Yes Im Biop]

No, there are a few power sources which probably produce the same amount of energy. Sure the reactor might have a low chance at failing. But remember, Chernobyl in Ukraine will not be inhabitable until the year 20000 because of the nuclear power plant disaster, it's just to risky

Chernobly is inhabitable now.

But at any rate the reason that Plant went nuclear was this
1: Idiots at the controls
2: Idiotic building it
3: Graphite control rods
4: They wanted to see what would happen if it was Redlined

[New Panti]

No, there are a few power sources which probably produce the same amount of energy. Sure the reactor might have a low chance at failing. But remember, Chernobyl in Ukraine will not be inhabitable until the year 20000 because of the nuclear power plant disaster, it's just to risky

Chernobly is inhabitable now.

But at any rate the reason that Plant went nuclear was this
1: Idiots at the controls
2: Idiotic building it
3: Graphite control rods
4: They wanted to see what would happen if it was Redlined

Chernobyl is inhabitable for a few hours if you have radiation suits.

[Yes Im Biop]

No, you see: it is probably impossible.

Fusion itself, however, has much promise.

If we can just figure out how to do it.

We have been able to reliably create Uncontrolled Fusion for 60+ years.
Controllable for what? 30?
Now the hurdle is to make it cost efficient (IE Create more power than it creates to jump start it)

[Yes Im Biop]

Chernobly is inhabitable now.

But at any rate the reason that Plant went nuclear was this
1: Idiots at the controls
2: Idiotic building it
3: Graphite control rods
4: They wanted to see what would happen if it was Redlined

Chernobyl is inhabitable for a few hours if you have radiation suits.

Yeah, But it's not like it will cook you instantly like people seem to believe (That being said I'm never going there outside of a NCB Sealed Tank)