PDA

View Full Version : nukes and other alternatives (sf. blood on hands)



Alan Shore
13-12-2005, 04:02 AM
This Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a joke... as bad as if not worse than Kim Jong Il.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17534050-401,00.html

bergil
13-12-2005, 05:28 AM
This Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a joke... as bad as if not worse than Kim Jong Il.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17534050-401,00.html
That maybe true but if Indoneasia had the bomb dam sure we'd want one too!

pballard
13-12-2005, 08:49 AM
This Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a joke... as bad as if not worse than Kim Jong Il.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17534050-401,00.html

Can get voted out, hasn't starved his people, doesn't have nuclear weapons, less monuments to himself... nutter that he is, he's not quite as bad as Kim Jong Il.

arosar
13-12-2005, 10:23 AM
So why should Iran not have a nuclear capability?

AR

four four two
13-12-2005, 10:46 AM
The question should be "Why should anyone have a nuclear capability?" :whistle:

Kaitlin
13-12-2005, 02:25 PM
to make electricity - Sweden has heaps - and they have a really big mine like thing under ground km's down to put the waste

Axiom
13-12-2005, 03:21 PM
iran will be attacked by march

four four two
13-12-2005, 05:18 PM
Thats a bit optimistic dont you think Axiom.
Unless you think they are going to use biochemical/nukes on them. :hmm:

The americans cant even handle a country like Iraq with about 20 million, Iran has over 70 million people.

Kaitlin,there are many ways to produce enough energy for humanity.
Nuclear is one of the worst options,the enevitable nuclear waste is going to be a major hassle for thousands of years. :whistle:

Vlad
13-12-2005, 05:43 PM
Kaitlin,there are many ways to produce enough energy for humanity.
Nuclear is one of the worst options,the enevitable nuclear waste is going to be a major hassle for thousands of years. :whistle:

Sorry mate, it is not true at all. After oil, gas and other natural resources are gone this is the only option humans are left with. Hydro and Solar energy are peanuts. Recycling is also not a serious option.

I do not agree about the second point as well. I believe in physicists (well, I used to be one long time ago). There will be a way to deal with the waste.

Lucena
13-12-2005, 05:52 PM
Thats a bit optimistic dont you think Axiom.
Unless you think they are going to use biochemical/nukes on them. :hmm:

The americans cant even handle a country like Iraq with about 20 million, Iran has over 70 million people.

Kaitlin,there are many ways to produce enough energy for humanity.
Nuclear is one of the worst options,the enevitable nuclear waste is going to be a major hassle for thousands of years. :whistle:

I'm not convinced the Americans are the ones Iran are worried about...

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17533460%255E663,00.html

Rhubarb
13-12-2005, 07:41 PM
Well I thought I'd start by pointing out the obvious to fawfie: the sun's power is nuclear energy.

One day, the cretins will stop voting for the planet-raping Texas oil f...wits and we'll have to look to alternatives.

As Kaitlin says, the Scandinavian countries (as usual) are leading the way, showing us all how to deal with nuclear waste in a safe manner. Don't get me wrong, you can't have half-arsed countries doing this shit - no expense can be spared.

Bob Hawke's recommendation that Australia has a moral duty to harbour nuclear waste may well be the greatest thing he has ever done.

four four two
13-12-2005, 08:02 PM
Greg/Keg, I would like to point out the obvious...the Sun's average distance from the Earth is 150million km. ;)

I agree with you that stable countries like Australia with big open unpopulated areas should be housing the existing nuclear waste.

The problem is when every developed country starts producing nuclear waste,then where do you put the massive stockpiles of waste? :hmm:

To me the more logical approach would be energy MANAGEMENT,as opposed to the developed worlds approach which is "Give me more and now!" :ponder:

One thing I would like to point out as well is that France and Germany are some of the biggest producers of nuclear waste in Europe ,and yet they are not prepared to store nuclear waste on a long term basis in their own countries. :whistle:

Rhubarb
13-12-2005, 08:29 PM
Greg/Keg, I would like to point out the obvious...the Sun's average distance from the Earth is 150million km. ;) Well, yes, but my point was that the sun is the source of all our energy - and it is nuclear. There seems to be an entrenched hysteria amongst the populace whenever the n-word is mentioned (much like the word 'terrorism').


I agree with you that stable countries like Australia with big open unpopulated areas should be housing the existing nuclear waste.Right, plus it's smack-bang in the middle of a tectonic plate.


The problem is when every developed country starts producing nuclear waste,then where do you put the massive stockpiles of waste? :hmm: Countries like Canada and Australia would easily be able to handle all of the world's nuclear waste.


To me the more logical approach would be energy MANAGEMENT,as opposed to the developed worlds approach which is "Give me more and now!" :ponder:Energy MANAGEMENT??? The Club of Rome told the developed world in the early 70's that they were already on the cusp of screwing things up irrevocably. More than 30 years later, they're still voting for people like Bush and Howard.



One thing I would like to point out as well is that France and Germany are some of the biggest producers of nuclear waste in Europe ,and yet they are not prepared to store nuclear waste on a long term basis in their own countries. :whistle:Well I don't particularly like the policies of countries like France and Germany. Do you? As I said, the Scandinavian countries are showing how it's done - and Australia is the best place for its implementation.

Spiny Norman
13-12-2005, 08:31 PM
the sun's power is nuclear energy.
Ban it, ban it NOW! Oh, hang on, I'm in Melbourne ... we're not that familiar with the sun down here ...

Rhubarb
13-12-2005, 08:40 PM
Ban it, ban it NOW! Oh, hang on, I'm in Melbourne ... we're not that familiar with the sun down here ...Yes, we know all about your incessant drizzle and sinister sky. ;)

Spiny Norman
13-12-2005, 08:41 PM
For a minute there I thought I'd mis-read and you were familiar with my incessant dribble ... :uhoh:

Alan Shore
14-12-2005, 11:56 AM
Isn't it true that it is within the Sun's core that nuclear fusion takes place, yet nukes on earth rely on nuclear fission?

Rincewind
14-12-2005, 01:25 PM
Isn't it true that it is within the Sun's core that nuclear fusion takes place, yet nukes on earth rely on nuclear fission?

Not sure exactly where in the Sun the nuclear fusion takes place but yes the sun is powered on hydrogen and fission can't really work with garden-variety hydrogen. The a-bomb and other heavy element nuclear weapons rely on nuclear fission, the h-bomb though is nuclear fusion. So "nukes" could be either. At least, that is my understanding.

Davidflude
29-03-2006, 01:55 PM
I spent a lot of time last week trying to work out whether a company that is setting up five plants in Australia to manufacture bio-diesel was cheap reasonably priced or
expensive. I will not name the company as I dont want someone rushing off and buying shares merely because it is environmentally friendly.

The process uses tallow, a small amount of methyl alcohol and a catalyst. The process has been known since 1860. It is possible to substitute a wide range of vegetable oils for the tallow. In the UK a plant is being built that will use rape seed oil.

Bio-diesel is much more environmentally friendly than normal diesel. It produces no sulphides and burns more cleanly.

Davidflude
29-03-2006, 02:06 PM
South Africa, Germany and China are developing what are called peeble bed reactors.

These use pebbles of fuel which consists mainly of thorium with some uranium.

The advantages are:

1) much smaller plants can be used than in a normal reactor.

2) these reactors are fail safe. If the reacitor overheats then the nuclear reaction stops. If cannot meltdown.

3) these reactors are useless for producing bomb grade materials.

4) the waste is much less reactive than normal nuclear waste and is much safer to handle and safer to dispose of.

In my opinion Australia should get into the business. Do'nt just dig it out of the ground. Manufacture the pebbles in Australia. Austrlia has lots of thorium.
Run it on a bring back the bottles system. You dont get new pebbles unless you return the old ones.

We offer a turn key system where we supply the fuel and dispose of the waste.

pax
29-03-2006, 03:30 PM
We offer a turn key system where we supply the fuel and dispose of the waste.

And I nominate you to select the electorate where the waste dump will be located. And to persuade the locals that it's a good idea :)

At present, radioactive waste is sitting in hospital car parks because they can't find a place for low-grade waste. Medium to high grade waste would be a nightmare.

four four two
30-03-2006, 12:01 PM
iran will be attacked by march

Not long to go Nostradamus...will the attack happen this afternoon or will the USA wait till friday prayers?:hmm::whistle:

arosar
29-11-2010, 11:30 PM
Whatever side you're on, you gotta be impressed by the work (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112901560.html) of these assassins. They weren't Japanese ninjas, I tell you that.

AR

Capablanca-Fan
30-11-2010, 06:52 AM
Well, yes, but my point was that the sun is the source of all our energy — and it is nuclear.
It is not the source of our nuclear fission energy.


There seems to be an entrenched hysteria amongst the populace whenever the n-word is mentioned (much like the word 'terrorism').
That's probably why MRI is called that rather than NMRI, since it uses nuclear magnetic resonance.

Garrett
30-11-2010, 09:17 AM
It is not the source of our nuclear fission energy.


nor Geothermal energy (if "our" above refers to humanity).

Rincewind
30-11-2010, 09:40 AM
Nuclear fission energy is not the result of nuclear fusion processes in our sun but is (according to orthodox cosmology) the result of nuclear fusion in other suns from which our solar system derived its matter.

Geothermal energy is probably to a large degree a result of the gravitational interaction with the sun. However the nuclear fusion processes of the sun are probably a smaller (perhaps insignificant) component.

However this is probably a pedantic point. A lot (probably most) energy comes from fossil fuels which ultimately are derived from the sun's nuclear fusion. That being said, just because the sun in nuclear, in some sense, is not an argument that nuclear energy is best. We need to look at the total lifetime costs, benefits and risks to make a case for or against. I mean ideally nuclear fusion is a better proposition than fission but at the moment there are engineering issues preventing implementation.

Capablanca-Fan
17-02-2011, 06:31 AM
Well, yes, but my point was that the sun is the source of all our energy - and it is nuclear. There seems to be an entrenched hysteria amongst the populace whenever the n-word is mentioned (much like the word 'terrorism').

Here is something quite sensible from a Labor man to one of their cabinet ministers, urging sense on nuclear power, and a way to distance themselves from the loony environmentalists in the Greens:

The Political Solution to Australia’s Energy Dilemma: Open Letter to Greg Combet from Phil Sawyer (http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2010/11/the-political-solution-to-australias-energy-dilemma-phil-sawyer/)

antichrist
01-06-2011, 01:41 AM
Well, yes, but my point was that the sun is the source of all our energy - and it is nuclear. There seems to be an entrenched hysteria amongst the populace whenever the n-word is mentioned (much like the word 'terrorism').

Right, plus it's smack-bang in the middle of a tectonic plate.

Countries like Canada and Australia would easily be able to handle all of the world's nuclear waste.

Energy MANAGEMENT??? The Club of Rome told the developed world in the early 70's that they were already on the cusp of screwing things up irrevocably. More than 30 years later, they're still voting for people like Bush and Howard.

Well I don't particularly like the policies of countries like France and Germany. Do you? As I said, the Scandinavian countries are showing how it's done - and Australia is the best place for its implementation.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/fukushima-fallout-germany-abandons-nuclear-energy-20110530-1fczb.html

Well there is no one better that I would prefer to announce it to that a country has finally announced that they will abandon nuke energy.

40 years ago I worked my guts out in protesting against nuke energy now I can finally get some satisfaction and that it was not all for nothing.

Capablanca-Fan
01-06-2011, 04:55 AM
http://www.smh.com.au/world/fukushima-fallout-germany-abandons-nuclear-energy-20110530-1fczb.html

Well there is no one better that I would prefer to announce it to that a country has finally announced that they will abandon nuke energy.

40 years ago I worked my guts out in protesting against nuke energy now I can finally get some satisfaction and that it was not all for nothing.
Stupid ludditism and pseudo-scientific scare-mongering. For rational argument, see The Japan tragedy: don’t let anti-nuclear liberals exploit it (http://patriotupdate.com/articles/the-japan-tragedy-don%E2%80%99t-let-anti-nuclear-liberals-exploit-it).