Question about nuclear bombs

The argument for nuclear power is weak here, so why build more sites? There has not been a nuclear war. There is only a balance of power trade relying upon nuclear stand off. What good is any of it. We should move it all to Australia.
 
We're an awfully long way from running out of coal.

Good coal, yes. And bad coal is incredibly polluting (good coal isn't all that clean) And fossile fuels add cee oh two to the atmosphere. While nuclear makes (quantitively) very little waste.

But there isn't that much uranium, either. At least, not the active stuff. A few centuries worth, at the most.

If there were a revolution in power storage, we could go onto renewable energies, but making everything while the sun shines is just not practical. And waiting for the tide to come in before we can refrigerate the fish, or truck them to market, not acceptable either.

Fission energy is not perfect, but it's an acceptable stopgap.
 
Switzerland's not too happy with geothermal. They can't prove it triggers earth tremors in Basel, but it's probable enough that work's stopped in Geneva.

But yes, heating your kettle over a volcano does seem a reasonable way of making steam.

Now, if only we could attach enough pietzo crystals to it to collect the earthquake energy too (like those discos where the floor movements are used to power the amplifiers…)
 
Most things run on natural gas or electricity, but there seems like many alternatives even wind energy.

The USA has a huge coal deposit if I remember correctly, very massive. The USA I think has large amounts of natural gas.

Anyway the point again is that nuclear energy gained by mass to heat energy seems to have a weak argument for it, and the other issue is after these plants get set up a danger exits. It might be fine for a period of time but if the wind changes than humanity will be running to those things looking to use them as weapons without any restraint. It is not like it is now where people have self control, so those things can be slipped in now quite easily, hey they are really popular, in fact I might go into a private venture to make my own nuclear plant.

Things like wind mills would work okay where I live but the wind mills are fairly expensive because they are not being produced on a large scale. The wind mill supplies power to a large battery, but there is natural gas and electricity available, so why bother with a wind mill. This year it hasn't been that windy. During other years there has been a decent amount of wind. It is not consistent.

There is one thing that I'll agree with. Mankind does need a weapon. That seems true enough. That is why the whole balance of power article becomes the solution. It makes exchange possible as a focus. Those must be the actual debates.
 
Last edited:
Most things run on natural gas or electricity, but there seems like many alternatives even wind energy.
Click to expand...

Where do you think the electricity comes from? And Natural Gas will run out sooner-or-later as well.

If "the wind changes" as you put it and we fall into nuclear war we will all be long-and-gone before anyone has time to convert nuclear power plants into weapons. How many nuclear warheads do you think the super-powers have in their stockpiles?
 
I was talking about my own personal situation. There is electricity and natural gas here, but I could get a wind mill which I hear provides enough energy so that it might make sense, and I could also get a large backup power supply, a generator, or even rig up solar panels. There are also small inverters and candle power, as well as natural gas heater/fire places, and a wood burning fireplace, for example. There are all kinds of sources of power around, and I started to think about them when I moved to an acreage a number of years ago.

I'm not sure about weapon stock piles, but they became prolific during the cold war period, and that was when they first came to the conclusion that it was impossible to win.

I think that the case that you have to make should be argued by tying it to economic liberty rather than energy unless you go the route that we are past taking caution, or else than prove the scientific questions or wait and see in which case it is best to keep very, very, quiet.

They always end up giving stuff away. Are you saying that Australia doesn't have nuclear power? I am surprised to hear that.
 
Last edited:
I feel one point missed here is that no matter how long they are going to last fossil fuels will not last forever; we are sure as heck using them faster than gelogical process create them :D. So is it fair to future generations for us to squander the planet's reserves they way are doing now?

We need a sustainable source of energy for the future and the sooner we have it the better. The technology of most of the alternative sources wind, sun, wave, tide etc. is simply not there yet as a serious replacement for fossil fuels. Fission power is.

Fission power is dangerous and the by product is hell to deal with (maybe in the future we will have to throw it into the sun, who knows) but even fission relies on a finite resource. I have no idea how finite, but certainly finite, and as I said we always have to consider the legacy of depleted resources that we leave to future generations. I truly believe the twentieth and probably the first half of the twenty first century will be viewed in history as criminally wasteful of the planets resources.

Ultimately we have to get Fusion figured; we are possibly close but not there yet. Fusion should be clean and theoretically could burn just about anything.
 
I feel one point missed here is that no matter how long they are going to last fossil fuels will not last forever; we are sure as heck using them faster than gelogical process create them :D. So is it fair to future generations for us to squander the planet's reserves they way are doing now?
Click to expand...

That's what I meant when I said they are running out...

Fusion isn't that far off. 50 years at most.
 
Doctor Crankenstein said:
That's what I meant when I said they are running out...

Fusion isn't that far off. 50 years at most.
Click to expand...

Yeah I figured that Dr - just seemed to me the response to you was a bit "sure, but not for a long time". Which is what I feel missed the point - it doesn't matter if it is 10 years or 200 years off, we are still squandering finite resources. Frankly the same argument goes for anything that we mine from the planet; metals, minerals etc. Time will come when we will be "mining" all our old garbage dumps and cursing the wasteful idiots of the twentieth century!

I think you are probably right re-fusion - Brian Cox (no not that Brian Cox :rolleyes:) has an interesting attitude to that; he basically says we've got to get fusion sorted soon as it is our only hope of maintaing our technological civilisation.
 
tumblr_ky1woe3hYa1qz4b32o1_400.jpg
 
:D:D Love it Dr.

I actually think that quite a lot (though maybe mistake rather than hoax to be kind :eek:). It would be sort of ironic if it did turn out to be a mistake (like the new ice age panic, in the 70's was it?) but we actually learned to clean up the planet through it. I love that kind of thing :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D A question of commas Grammar & Spelling 20
D Birdy question Science & Nature 12
Dave Printer Question Technology 6
J The Stand Question Stephen King 11
Jade44 A Question About Nuclear Fusion Book Discussion 20

Similar threads


Back
Top