NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a sort of oppinion poll post to see what you all think about nuclear power and to see it there should be a resoloution passed.

I think that nuclear power is the only currently knowen power sorce that can save our planet from the 'global warming effect'. It is a very safe way of producing power as long as saftey rules and common sence is used. The Very small amount of waste that is produced from using nuclear power can be easily stored under-ground where there is almost no chance whatsoever that it will do any harm at all, also any risks caused by any (highly improbable) event is insignificant compaired to the threat of 'global warming'.

Another point I would like to say is that I would like nothing more for renewable energy resorses to be the way to produce the world's power but it simply never can.

1. It is too unpredictable. A small problem but one that causes complications.

2. The energy to make somthing like a wind-turbine for example is more than it can possibly produce in it's entire life-time.

3.The area of land and sea that would have to be covered with renewable energy systems to produce even a part of the world's power uesage is astranomical, as would be the price.

There is a poll so you can see the genral feeling, please vote so we can get a realistic impretion of what you all think. If there is no thread due to me not knowing how to put one in properly please bear with me. ty.

Please discuss.

renewable power isn't as bad and ineffective, but it requires the country to have the geography for it. i believe each and every country pick their power supply to best suit their interest. suggesting nuclear is good all-round doesn't really look right.

it has it issues too... nuclear waste, accidents, as well as a danger that the spend rods are converted into weapons.

with that said, i am supportive for nuclear power in my country... :headbang: not using it intensively for power supply, it is for "research purposes only". :rolleyes:

In my country, most of the power used is nuclear power. It is a very reliable source. Although accidents do happen, I think that as long as you have trained workers handling it it should minmize the risk. Even if there was a risk I wouldn't care. It gives off a whole lot of power to be worried about that. I also have a big stockpile of nuclear weapons which are very reliable ways of eliminating an enemy nation. Due to the Uranium deposit, I have a lot of material to work with therefore I support having nuclear power plants as a source of power.

This is a sort of oppinion poll post to see what you all think about nuclear power and to see it there should be a resoloution passed.

Okay. I'll try not to be too harsh.

I think that nuclear power is the only currently knowen power sorce that can save our planet from the 'global warming effect'. It is a very safe way of producing power as long as saftey rules and common sence is used. The Very small amount of waste that is produced from using nuclear power can be easily stored under-ground where there is almost no chance whatsoever that it will do any harm at all, also any risks caused by any (highly improbable) event is insignificant compaired to the threat of 'global warming'.

Actually, there are questions of whether you can recycle the waste.

Also, we have no proof that global warming is caused by humans. We have evidence that suggests it, but that evidence quickly fades away when you remove the idiotic hysteria from it and point out other factors recently discovered that may make it beyond the ability of humanity to even affect with the current or past technology distributions.

However, no matter how you look at it, a need for alternative fuel sources is rising quickly. Oil doesn't last forever and hydrogen produces one of the most potent greenhouse gases on Earth, potentially with the redistribution of said gases causing massive weather shifts in as little as ten years. And so far, the only solutions to the problem of hydrogen end up damaging the environment in other, and just as irreversible, ways.

Another point I would like to say is that I would like nothing more for renewable energy resorses to be the way to produce the world's power but it simply never can.

1. It is too unpredictable. A small problem but one that causes complications.

True.

2. The energy to make somthing like a wind-turbine for example is more than it can possibly produce in it's entire life-time.

That's not to mention the potential changes in weather patterns they can cause. Get those in high numbers on the ground and they change the wind patterns near the ground. That slowly spreads upwards.

3.The area of land and sea that would have to be covered with renewable energy systems to produce even a part of the world's power uesage is astranomical, as would be the price.

I don't have the solar power issue. But that's because my nation orbits a red giant. The amount of UV radiation it throws off in a day would kill all life on Earth.

There is a poll so you can see the genral feeling, please vote so we can get a realistic impretion of what you all think. If there is no thread due to me not knowing how to put one in properly please bear with me. ty.

We already have two resolutions on alternative fuel sources.

3.The area of land and sea that would have to be covered with renewable energy systems to produce even a part of the world's power usage is astronomical, as would be the price.

Roofs. There are a lot of roofs in the world, and very few of them serve any useful purpose other than keeping water off our beds.

The price need not be astronomical to significantly reduce fossil fuel dependence - the price is high now because there isn't enough market for mass production to lower prices.

Not that all nations have a lot of sunlight, or all worlds suffer from global warming.

I think nuclear power is just peachy, btw. Wouldn't support a resolution requiring it, though.

Actually, solar power is a pretty good alternative energy source, you just have to place it right and it's avalible in infinite amounts, almost.

As a small nation of 8 million people, we have not yet developed a demand for a more powerful source of electricity past our wind generators and solar panels.

However, we do mine a small area for uranium which we export, and will likely support a small Nuclear Power plant in the future, should the need arise.

I am still unsure, however, what your resolution would be doing so I cannot say whether I would support it or not. Would it force a nation to use mainly nuclear power? or would it only protect the nation's that decide to use nuclear power?

We like wind, solar, and geothermal, though we do have additional tidal and nuclear generators.

Wind is easy in Antarctica - 200mph winds are normal in much of the southern regions, so a windfarm has nearly constant power. The "side effect" of lowering the wind "further down the road" has actually been a boon to us.

Solar is equally good, as we enjoy constant sunlight for four of six months of the year, with four months partial sunlight. This allows for a huge amount of storage of power for the unlit months.

Geothermal is an excellent source, we have plenty of it.

And nuclear has been a nice, peaceful, alternative and an excellent alternative when needed. It has also allowed expansion of the former methods, when they had to be "shut down" to expand, there was no loss of power.

Do we believe nuclear is the only way to go? No. There will be other, better, stronger methods yet to come - contraterrean generation comes to mind. Tesla had many ideas, few of which have been fully followed up. Who knows what others exist?

Actually, solar power is a pretty good alternative energy source, you just have to place it right and it's avalible in infinite amounts, almost.

Microwave satellites in proper positions will allow infinite amounts, as there is never a "dark period" to them. A good space program, however, is necessary.

All this reminds me of the old Sim City 2000 I used to play a long time ago.

If I remember right, I think Nuclear Fusion was the ultimate energy plant you could have.

Actually, just some cash to purchase a launch is all you need. A few civilian storefronts will do that.

Solar power cells installed on roofs would be a exelent way to produce power and I would like to know what could be done in the UN to, not make it obligitory, but to at least have some sort of system all could agree on.

I would also like to know how you get wind turbines to work ing 200mph winds, as the wind in the ''real england can get to fast to run them and we don't get anywhere neer 200mph winds.

Also on the same subject, did anyone see the RI christmas lectures this year, they showed some interesting facts about how current fossil fuel usage isn't sustainable.

the DSH is a world leader in Nuclear technology - we even have cars powered by it. This might be because the whole nation is full of the stuff. Honestly, we have been mining it for decades, and it never seems to run out!

the DSH is a world leader in Nuclear technology - we even have cars powered by it. This might be because the whole nation is full of the stuff. Honestly, we have been mining it for decades, and it never seems to run out!

(smirk) I now have an image of a guy with a pick-axe digging up a glowing ball of energy, then tossing it in to a truck. It's quite amusing :}

I have now remade this post on the NationStates post page (in Sound & Fury)
It now has a oppinion poll so you can vote and hopefully more people will post there.

For those in the know Fission U235>PU + neutrons

Fusion H +H> HE

Fusion creates energy with no ionizing radiation or waste

Fission creates that what we know.

Thr trouble is Fussion at this point other just breaks even or barley an energy profit. However it is estimated that within the next decade it will be perfected. I know there are several models with varrios stages of sucess, laser, toriod, and polomer.

Fisssion does have a semi-enviromentaly friendly the breeder reacter however they have to be torn down after 50 years of use do to sedimtation.

What is your opinion?