It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why nuclear power is not the answer

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   
I also think that Nuclear power is the way to go.

Yes the waste is a problem, but very small compared to other forms of conventional power.

For one thing we can actually contain the waste. Fossil fuel burning just spreads the waste out into our rivers and air.

Shooting the waste into space would be a big mistake. When we finally find a use for the waste we would be very sorry that we launched our limited supply of radioactives into the sun.

How about a storage facility on the moon? Then it would be far away from us, and even if was damaged, no one would be killed.

And we all know about Chernobyl, but how many people have been hurt by stored nuclear waste? I doubt very many, if any at all.

All things considered nuclear power is the safest cleanest energy we have right now, that is capable of replacing our reliance on fossil fuels.




posted on May, 30 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I agree with you" Leftbehind" by the way have you read those books called "Left Behind"? Any ways had to ask because of your name.


Nuclear power is one of our best energy resources, and can help move away from relying on fossil fules "true". I also beleive it is the power that will destroy us in the end none the less. Will they wait till all the oil/gas is ran out befor they install new ways for energy other then nuclear power? They already have the technology to change many things... but it all falls back on the Corp world and the money involved. More likely then not they wont do much untill they havnt any more options left. Thanks for your replies so far every one



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Ive seen a couple of people mention launching nuclear waste into space, storing on the moon etc... but wouldnt that just ruin the whole point of Nuclear energy??

After all would'nt it take hundreds, if not thousands, of rockets to remove all of the earths waste? and that would generate a huge amount of pollution (i think)

I am probably wrong and am certainly no expert in this field



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by undercoverchef
Ive seen a couple of people mention launching nuclear waste into space, storing on the moon etc... but wouldnt that just ruin the whole point of Nuclear energy??

After all would'nt it take hundreds, if not thousands, of rockets to remove all of the earths waste? and that would generate a huge amount of pollution (i think)

I am probably wrong and am certainly no expert in this field


It would cost way to much if we started launching waste into space, not to mention like you said.... undercoverchef.....pollution. This shurley wouldnt be the answere thats for shure. Well said undercoverchef!



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroKauz
It would cost way to much if we started launching waste into space, not to mention like you said.... undercoverchef.....pollution. This shurley wouldnt be the answere thats for shure. Well said undercoverchef!


There is a proposal for a 2 km long EM accelerator (railgun) capable to shoot the waste to the space - directly to the sun. The energy necessary could be drawn from nuclear powerplant and it will need only 10% of the powerplant production - it can be used during night when the power consumption is lower.
It would be also more secure than rockets, because once it gives the container with waste the speed it cannot "fall back" to the Earth.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
It is true that current uranium/plutonium reactors are not the good solution. But remeber that the goal of nuclear science is not fission but nuclear fusion - it produces no radioactive waste and the fuel is much cheaper (hydrogen, resp. helium isitopes).


I have looked up your statments must be true........only thing is when ...and why¿



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by ZeroKauz
It would cost way to much if we started launching waste into space, not to mention like you said.... undercoverchef.....pollution. This shurley wouldnt be the answere thats for shure. Well said undercoverchef!


There is a proposal for a 2 km long EM accelerator (railgun) capable to shoot the waste to the space - directly to the sun. The energy necessary could be drawn from nuclear powerplant and it will need only 10% of the powerplant production - it can be used during night when the power consumption is lower.
It would be also more secure than rockets, because once it gives the container with waste the speed it cannot "fall back" to the Earth.


where are your sources long bow(_&_).!




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join