Conquer Club

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:11 pm**

Should we switch to alternative sources of energy or stay the way we are?

I'm curious as to what people on this forum think of our oil consumption. No combination choices will be available. Pick the one you think would be most practical.

Any 'others' will have to be described by the poster.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:14 pm**

if we don't switch we are screwed because it will run out eventually...

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:14 pm**

I find that Nuclear is the most practical.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:17 pm**

Chris7He wrote:I find that Nuclear is the most practical.

then you, sir, are a fool.

nuclear energy, although it doesn't cause global warming, is extremely poisonous, produces tonnes of radioactive waste and can cause explosions which poison entire continents.

also, supplies of Uranium-235 are likely to run out in the nextb 60 years.

i voted hydroelectricity.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:20 pm**

mr. incrediball wrote:
Chris7He wrote:I find that Nuclear is the most practical.

then you, sir, are a fool.

nuclear energy, although it doesn't cause global warming, is extremely poisonous, produces tonnes of radioactive waste and can cause explosions which poison entire continents.

also, supplies of Uranium-235 are likely to run out in the nextb 60 years.

i voted hydroelectricity.

I think he was referring more to fusion than fission, but hydro is still up there.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:23 pm**

Frigidus wrote:
mr. incrediball wrote:
Chris7He wrote:I find that Nuclear is the most practical.

then you, sir, are a fool.

nuclear energy, although it doesn't cause global warming, is extremely poisonous, produces tonnes of radioactive waste and can cause explosions which poison entire continents.

also, supplies of Uranium-235 are likely to run out in the nextb 60 years.

i voted hydroelectricity.

I think he was referring more to fusion than fission, but hydro is still up there.

i still think he meant fission. but thanks to you, i've learnt all about fusion :wink:

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:27 pm**

mr. incrediball wrote:
Chris7He wrote:I find that Nuclear is the most practical.

then you, sir, are a fool.

nuclear energy, although it doesn't cause global warming, is extremely poisonous, produces tonnes of radioactive waste and can cause explosions which poison entire continents.

also, supplies of Uranium-235 are likely to run out in the nextb 60 years.

i voted hydroelectricity.

Most of the rivers in the United States are dammed up and creating more dams (near deltas and currently undammed rivers) cause large scale environmental damage as well as mass migrations and destruction of habitats and living space. Nuclear power can be controlled and I believe in both nuclear fission and fusion. Uranium can be created and isolated by fusing elements and isolating others.

Nuclear power may also be placed in space to keep radiation away. Nuclear waste may be jettisoned or may have other purposes.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:30 pm**

We need to use a combonation of all of those resources...we can't just depend on 1.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:31 pm**

nuclear - affordable and abundant. should be complemented with water, wind, solar and biomass energy sources.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:32 pm**

soundout9 wrote:We need to use a combonation of all of those resources...we can't just depend on 1.

I meant rely mostly on one. We can't be using 10 percent of everything, now, can we?

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:32 pm**

soundout9 wrote:We need to use a combonation of all of those resources...we can't just depend on 1.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:32 pm**

Chris7He wrote:
mr. incrediball wrote:
Chris7He wrote:I find that Nuclear is the most practical.

then you, sir, are a fool.

nuclear energy, although it doesn't cause global warming, is extremely poisonous, produces tonnes of radioactive waste and can cause explosions which poison entire continents.

also, supplies of Uranium-235 are likely to run out in the nextb 60 years.

i voted hydroelectricity.

Most of the rivers in the United States are dammed up and creating more dams (near deltas and currently undammed rivers) cause large scale environmental damage as well as mass migrations and destruction of habitats and living space. Nuclear power can be controlled and I believe in both nuclear fission and fusion. Uranium can be created and isolated by fusing elements and isolating others.

Nuclear power may also be placed in space to keep radiation away. Nuclear waste may be jettisoned or may have other purposes.

then america can use a different source of energy. but the world as a whole can stick with hydro.

that would cause almost as much pollution as nuclear power is supposed to prevent, no?

i highly doubt it.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:35 pm**

Chris7He wrote:
soundout9 wrote:We need to use a combonation of all of those resources...we can't just depend on 1.

I meant rely mostly on one. We can't be using 10 percent of everything, now, can we?

Um....yes! we need to move away from oil and junk and mostly usee

hydroelectric
Solar
and wind

nuclear can be used but VERY limited.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:37 pm**

mr. incrediball wrote:
Chris7He wrote:
mr. incrediball wrote:
Chris7He wrote:I find that Nuclear is the most practical.

then you, sir, are a fool.

nuclear energy, although it doesn't cause global warming, is extremely poisonous, produces tonnes of radioactive waste and can cause explosions which poison entire continents.

also, supplies of Uranium-235 are likely to run out in the nextb 60 years.

i voted hydroelectricity.

Most of the rivers in the United States are dammed up and creating more dams (near deltas and currently undammed rivers) cause large scale environmental damage as well as mass migrations and destruction of habitats and living space. Nuclear power can be controlled and I believe in both nuclear fission and fusion. Uranium can be created and isolated by fusing elements and isolating others.

Nuclear power may also be placed in space to keep radiation away. Nuclear waste may be jettisoned or may have other purposes.

then america can use a different source of energy. but the world as a whole can stick with hydro.

that would cause almost as much pollution as nuclear power is supposed to prevent, no?

i highly doubt it.

Hey, MI.I.....no need to argue with this dumbshit. :roll:

His arguement sucks.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:38 pm**

mr. incrediball wrote:
Chris7He wrote:
Most of the rivers in the United States are dammed up and creating more dams (near deltas and currently undammed rivers) cause large scale environmental damage as well as mass migrations and destruction of habitats and living space. Nuclear power can be controlled and I believe in both nuclear fission and fusion. Uranium can be created and isolated by fusing elements and isolating others.

Nuclear power may also be placed in space to keep radiation away. Nuclear waste may be jettisoned or may have other purposes.

then america can use a different source of energy. but the world as a whole can stick with hydro.

that would cause almost as much pollution as nuclear power is supposed to prevent, no?

i highly doubt it.

Many countries do not have rivers. China will damn up it's rivers, but that still isn't (not even close) enough to support it's massive population. Western Europe is dammed up tight, but they still use almost ten nuclear power plants.

I didn't say hydro caused pollution. Nuclear waste may be recycled or used for other things. Hydroelectricity is already pretty widespread. Any further expansion will either cause damage to river or ocean environments and habitats or will cause billions of dollars in damages and force people away from where they live.

In China, seven million people were forced to move away from their homes when the government began building the Three Gorges Dam and in Argentina a few million people also had to move away.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:40 pm**

Chris7He wrote:
mr. incrediball wrote:
Chris7He wrote:
Most of the rivers in the United States are dammed up and creating more dams (near deltas and currently undammed rivers) cause large scale environmental damage as well as mass migrations and destruction of habitats and living space. Nuclear power can be controlled and I believe in both nuclear fission and fusion. Uranium can be created and isolated by fusing elements and isolating others.

Nuclear power may also be placed in space to keep radiation away. Nuclear waste may be jettisoned or may have other purposes.

then america can use a different source of energy. but the world as a whole can stick with hydro.

that would cause almost as much pollution as nuclear power is supposed to prevent, no?

i highly doubt it.

Many countries do not have rivers. China will damn up it's rivers, but that still isn't (not even close) enough to support it's massive population. Western Europe is dammed up tight, but they still use almost ten nuclear power plants.

I didn't say hydro caused pollution. Nuclear waste may be recycled or used for other things. Hydroelectricity is already pretty widespread. Any further expansion will either cause damage to river or ocean environments and habitats or will cause billions of dollars in damages and force people away from where they live.

In China, seven million people were forced to move away from their homes when the government began building the Three Gorges Dam and in Argentina a few million people also had to move away.

hmm...

some very good points there, i'll have to concede.

but i still don't think nuclear's the way to go.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:42 pm**

soundout9 wrote:Hey, MI.I.....no need to argue with this dumbshit. His arguement sucks.

Just because you hold a grudge against me does not authorize you to call me 'dumbshit'. If Madam Curie could isolate Radium, then we can definitely isolate or create new Uranium. Nuclear waste could be jettisoned or recycled (jettisoned being more reasonable).

I chose nuclear because I was split between solar and nuclear and decided to go with whatever I put first. Nuclear is a reliable energy source. Safety measures set up now make nuclear meltdowns virtually impossible. A new type of reactor (there will be more) called a Breeder Reactor increases nuclear power efficiency from 30 percent to 70.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:44 pm**

Chris7He wrote:
soundout9 wrote:Hey, MI.I.....no need to argue with this dumbshit. His arguement sucks.

Just because you hold a grudge against me does not authorize you to call me 'dumbshit'. If Madam Curie could isolate Radium, then we can definitely isolate or create new Uranium. Nuclear waste could be jettisoned or recycled (jettisoned being more reasonable).

I chose nuclear because I was split between solar and nuclear and decided to go with whatever I put first. Nuclear is a reliable energy source. Safety measures set up now make nuclear meltdowns virtually impossible. A new type of reactor (there will be more) called a Breeder Reactor increases nuclear power efficiency from 30 percent to 70.

And what happens when one (and will) fail....we all die and the place is unihabbitle for YEARS!

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:45 pm**

mr. incrediball wrote:
Chris7He wrote:
mr. incrediball wrote:
Chris7He wrote:
Most of the rivers in the United States are dammed up and creating more dams (near deltas and currently undammed rivers) cause large scale environmental damage as well as mass migrations and destruction of habitats and living space. Nuclear power can be controlled and I believe in both nuclear fission and fusion. Uranium can be created and isolated by fusing elements and isolating others.

Nuclear power may also be placed in space to keep radiation away. Nuclear waste may be jettisoned or may have other purposes.

then america can use a different source of energy. but the world as a whole can stick with hydro.

that would cause almost as much pollution as nuclear power is supposed to prevent, no?

i highly doubt it.

Many countries do not have rivers. China will damn up it's rivers, but that still isn't (not even close) enough to support it's massive population. Western Europe is dammed up tight, but they still use almost ten nuclear power plants.

I didn't say hydro caused pollution. Nuclear waste may be recycled or used for other things. Hydroelectricity is already pretty widespread. Any further expansion will either cause damage to river or ocean environments and habitats or will cause billions of dollars in damages and force people away from where they live.

In China, seven million people were forced to move away from their homes when the government began building the Three Gorges Dam and in Argentina a few million people also had to move away.

hmm...

some very good points there, i'll have to concede.

but i still don't think nuclear's the way to go.

I don't want you to concede, really. I actually believe that all rivers should be dammed up, but I don't think that will be enough to supply the world with power and we will need solar panels on every roof and plenty of nuclear and (something I forgot) hydrogen power should be researched.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:47 pm**

soundout9 wrote:
Chris7He wrote:
soundout9 wrote:Hey, MI.I.....no need to argue with this dumbshit. His arguement sucks.

Just because you hold a grudge against me does not authorize you to call me 'dumbshit'. If Madam Curie could isolate Radium, then we can definitely isolate or create new Uranium. Nuclear waste could be jettisoned or recycled (jettisoned being more reasonable).

I chose nuclear because I was split between solar and nuclear and decided to go with whatever I put first. Nuclear is a reliable energy source. Safety measures set up now make nuclear meltdowns virtually impossible. A new type of reactor (there will be more) called a Breeder Reactor increases nuclear power efficiency from 30 percent to 70.

And what happens when one (and will) fail....we all die and the place is unihabbitle for YEARS!

We won't die. It would take dozens of simultaneous meltdowns for that to occur. If there are meltdowns, that is the governments' fault. Russia's Chernobyl accident was because of mismanagement of the nuclear power plant and the officials running the plant allowing coal workers to run tests with the power plant (dumb isn't it?)

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:50 pm**

isn't it easier (going completely away from what i originally thought was right like the flip-flopper i am) to screw power stations entirely, and just have every building with it's own solar panels/wind turbine/water wheel?

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:52 pm**

Chris7He wrote:
soundout9 wrote:
Chris7He wrote:
soundout9 wrote:Hey, MI.I.....no need to argue with this dumbshit. His arguement sucks.

Just because you hold a grudge against me does not authorize you to call me 'dumbshit'. If Madam Curie could isolate Radium, then we can definitely isolate or create new Uranium. Nuclear waste could be jettisoned or recycled (jettisoned being more reasonable).

I chose nuclear because I was split between solar and nuclear and decided to go with whatever I put first. Nuclear is a reliable energy source. Safety measures set up now make nuclear meltdowns virtually impossible. A new type of reactor (there will be more) called a Breeder Reactor increases nuclear power efficiency from 30 percent to 70.

And what happens when one (and will) fail....we all die and the place is unihabbitle for YEARS!

We won't die. It would take dozens of simultaneous meltdowns for that to occur. If there are meltdowns, that is the governments' fault. Russia's Chernobyl accident was because of mismanagement of the nuclear power plant and the officials running the plant allowing coal workers to run tests with the power plant (dumb isn't it?)

One WILL fail no matter what you say...it may not be today, tomarrow or in 30 years but one day it will fail. We all die was sarcastic but many people will and the place of the meltdown will become inhabitalle for YEARS. Now do you want that to happen?

If you don't think it will happen name 1, just 1 human machine that has never been faulty....ever.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:53 pm**

mr. incrediball wrote:isn't it easier (going completely away from what i originally thought was right like the flip-flopper i am) to screw power stations entirely, and just have every building with it's own solar panels/wind turbine/water wheel?

NO. Not every place is sunny or has good wind (without being too strong) or is close to water.

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:53 pm**

soundout9 wrote:If you don't think it will happen name 1, just 1 human machine that has never been faulty....ever.

the playstation 3 :wink:

Posted: **Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:53 pm**

soundout9 wrote:
Chris7He wrote:
soundout9 wrote:
Chris7He wrote:
Just because you hold a grudge against me does not authorize you to call me 'dumbshit'. If Madam Curie could isolate Radium, then we can definitely isolate or create new Uranium. Nuclear waste could be jettisoned or recycled (jettisoned being more reasonable).

I chose nuclear because I was split between solar and nuclear and decided to go with whatever I put first. Nuclear is a reliable energy source. Safety measures set up now make nuclear meltdowns virtually impossible. A new type of reactor (there will be more) called a Breeder Reactor increases nuclear power efficiency from 30 percent to 70.

And what happens when one (and will) fail....we all die and the place is unihabbitle for YEARS!

We won't die. It would take dozens of simultaneous meltdowns for that to occur. If there are meltdowns, that is the governments' fault. Russia's Chernobyl accident was because of mismanagement of the nuclear power plant and the officials running the plant allowing coal workers to run tests with the power plant (dumb isn't it?)

One WILL fail no matter what you say...it may not be today, tomarrow or in 30 years but one day it will fail. We all die was sarcastic but many people will and the place of the meltdown will become inhabitalle for YEARS. Now do you want that to happen?

If you don't think it will happen name 1, just 1 human machine that has never been faulty....ever.

Have you ever heard of nuclear power stations in space?

Conquer Club

Should we switch to alternative sources of energy?

Should we switch to alternative sources of energy?