Nuclear power produces a small amount of highly dangerous waste.
Fossil fuels produce a large amount of not very dangerous waste.
Pick your poison.
A large glass of Bushmills for St Patrick's day please. And it'll power a converted car.
Nuclear power produces a small amount of highly dangerous waste.
Fossil fuels produce a large amount of not very dangerous waste.
Pick your poison.
Drill here, drill NOW!
Oh...and while you're at it...throw up a couple nuke plants as well. Forget all of those half-baked ideas like wind mills and solar power...those types of fairy tale sources of power have no future.
Nuclear power produces a small amount of highly dangerous waste.
Fossil fuels produce a large amount of not very dangerous waste.
Pick your poison.
All Nuclear Facilities in the United States are 40 years old or MORE>The plant that malfunctioned was made in the 1960's. If it takes a 9.0 (or 8.9 depending on source) earthquake to cause an incident at a 50 year old plant than Maybe the real answer is to stop extending the life of the plants indefinately.
All Nuclear Facilities in the United States are 40 years old or MORE>
At least 3 reactors somewhere between partial and total meltdown=REALLY BAD SHIT
How do you expect people to feel after seeing what 2 Nuclear bombs did to a country of people? That should strike fear into anyone regardless of when it happened.
We could have had ethanol cars and electric cars a lot faster if it weren't for the corporations wanting to make certain every last bit of 'black gold' gets burnt up first. :frown:
Not true, STP was the first nuclear power plant in Texas, beginning operation in 1988. In 1996, the two South Texas units were two of the top 20 electricity-generating nuclear units worldwide.All Nuclear Facilities in the United States are 40 years old or MORE>
I stand corrected.......I heard it on the news. here's some moe accurate info:Not true, STP was the first nuclear power plant in Texas, beginning operation in 1988. In 1996, the two South Texas units were two of the top 20 electricity-generating nuclear units worldwide.
Not sure that ethanol is any kind of answer unless we have a stable, or better, a rapidly declining world population.
It's not always that more efficient, it's better used as electricity, it uses fossil fuel to farm & convert it, it takes about a century to recover the carbon emitted converting non arable land to ethanol production, soil erosion, fresh water depletion, food vs fuel dilemma etc etc.
I'm not sure that the world wouldn't be a better place if we all just use/consumed less, & let ourselves take a few decades breather to consider & reflect.
Really, now. Is that your opinion? I've yet to run into any fissionable coal. :smile:
It's just bad the way the US is making it: from corn. Not only does the process use more petroleum than it replaces, but since humans eat corn, diverting it to fuel creates other problems.
In Brazil, the sun is much more intense than in the US, and they make it from sugar cane. Ethanol farms / factories there can be self sufficient, requiring no petroleum. The needed electricity is produced by burning the crushed cane, and the farm vehicles run on ethanol.
Sugarcane ethanol: Brazil's biofuel success - SciDev.Net
Agreed.
In my opinion, fusion is the answer. I think that is where we need to put our research funding. I know it sounds far reached, but the amount of energy there is unreal.
Bringing up Brazil again: Fusion is the answer of the future. And always will be.
Fusion power has been 20 years away since at least the 80s. Every time we make progress in one area, new obstacles arise.
Fusion's False Dawn: Scientific American