...that every country in the world will need nuclear facilities in the future to satisfy their energy requirements?
Man that IAEA is gonna be busy...
Man that IAEA is gonna be busy...
Well, not Iran.
Who says they have to use nuclear power?
I work in the electricity industry. I can't see any alternative. Renewable energy is pretty much bullshit (apart from tidal maybe).liquidat0r wrote:
Who says they have to use nuclear power?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-04-14 12:34:36)
i think thorium reactors are the way of the future
...Well at least it would be in the name of peace.CameronPoe wrote:
...that every country in the world will need nuclear facilities in the future to satisfy their energy requirements?
Man that IAEA is gonna be busy...
BTW - What is exactly is the future? ...1 year? 1000 years?
~ W
~ 40 years I'd say.Warlord wrote:
...Well at least it would be in the name of peace.CameronPoe wrote:
...that every country in the world will need nuclear facilities in the future to satisfy their energy requirements?
Man that IAEA is gonna be busy...
BTW - What is exactly is the future? ...1 year? 1000 years?
~ W
Nuke energy is a logical choice with a few quid pro quos for it. Waste disposal is an issue and if we have nuclear plants in many countries, you never know when some political turmoil might show its ugly face and give public access for the creation of dirty bombs.
This is why we need a REAL world wide governing power, that can regulate and distribute the power.
Cams right, there is no stopping nuclear power. It is the best, cleanest power there is.
Those who scream about global warming should be doing the most about making nuclear energy happen.
Cams right, there is no stopping nuclear power. It is the best, cleanest power there is.
Those who scream about global warming should be doing the most about making nuclear energy happen.
I agree somewhat. it will be more then 40 years.. i mean the U.S. hasnt built 1 in like 40 years or something and we are fully capable but i think more and more first world countries will.. 2nd and 3rd are still FAR off. Unless u have a crazy power hungry dictator putting all your funds into it (iran)
Why not just have centralised power generation facilities in countries with nuclear energy already providing the power to other people? Surely a multinational electrical network would cost less than all the corrupt IAEA regulation and be a more effective means for keeping nuclear power out of the hands of less stable nations.
Thats what I'm talking about.Bertster7 wrote:
Why not just have centralised power generation facilities in countries with nuclear energy already providing the power to other people? Surely a multinational electrical network would cost less than all the corrupt IAEA regulation and be a more effective means for keeping nuclear power out of the hands of less stable nations.
+1
as long as the Irish don't go nuclear, they like the bottle too much. just imagine Chernobyl with leprechuans and five leaf clovers.
Oh god, if you have an actual effective world governing power, the Christian fundamentalists are going to really flip out about that "end times" bullshit. You saw the hissy fit they threw about bar codes and the EU.ATG wrote:
This is why we need a REAL world wide governing power, that can regulate and distribute the power.
Cams right, there is no stopping nuclear power. It is the best, cleanest power there is.
Those who scream about global warming should be doing the most about making nuclear energy happen.
Because that's like handing a lucrative monopoly to France. Nice but impractical.Bertster7 wrote:
Why not just have centralised power generation facilities in countries with nuclear energy already providing the power to other people? Surely a multinational electrical network would cost less than all the corrupt IAEA regulation and be a more effective means for keeping nuclear power out of the hands of less stable nations.
I really think in 40 years there will be plenty of alternative energy sources besides nuclear... If humans think they can use it forever I think earth is going to end up as one big toxic waste dump. Having a kid with toes growing out of his head might end up being considered perfectly normal tough... :-o
~W
~W
But to do that you'd need to have a surplus of nuclear energy. I don't know about US or UK, but for instance Argentina has only 3 plants providing around 10% of the country's power needs.Bertster7 wrote:
Why not just have centralised power generation facilities in countries with nuclear energy already providing the power to other people? Surely a multinational electrical network would cost less than all the corrupt IAEA regulation and be a more effective means for keeping nuclear power out of the hands of less stable nations.
Fuck them.Sanjaya wrote:
Oh god, if you have an actual effective world governing power, the Christian fundamentalists are going to really flip out about that "end times" bullshit. You saw the hissy fit they threw about bar codes and the EU.ATG wrote:
This is why we need a REAL world wide governing power, that can regulate and distribute the power.
Cams right, there is no stopping nuclear power. It is the best, cleanest power there is.
Those who scream about global warming should be doing the most about making nuclear energy happen.
Only in the context of Europe. In Europe it is perfectly feasible for most nations to have their own nuclear power facilities. Alternatively an EU pwoer commission where all countries pay a bit more into the EU and a group answering to the EU provide the power, thus avoiding any national monopoly - but creating a horrible amount of bureacracy.CameronPoe wrote:
Because that's like handing a lucrative monopoly to France. Nice but impractical.Bertster7 wrote:
Why not just have centralised power generation facilities in countries with nuclear energy already providing the power to other people? Surely a multinational electrical network would cost less than all the corrupt IAEA regulation and be a more effective means for keeping nuclear power out of the hands of less stable nations.
I'd have thought Russia stood to gain the most with a system like that.
France have almost 90% of their power from nuclear energy. It's perfectly doable.sergeriver wrote:
But to do that you'd need to have a surplus of nuclear energy. I don't know about US or UK, but for instance Argentina has only 3 plants providing around 10% of the country's power needs.Bertster7 wrote:
Why not just have centralised power generation facilities in countries with nuclear energy already providing the power to other people? Surely a multinational electrical network would cost less than all the corrupt IAEA regulation and be a more effective means for keeping nuclear power out of the hands of less stable nations.
Yes, but it first needs to cover the other 10%.Bertster7 wrote:
France have almost 90% of their power from nuclear energy. It's perfectly doable.sergeriver wrote:
But to do that you'd need to have a surplus of nuclear energy. I don't know about US or UK, but for instance Argentina has only 3 plants providing around 10% of the country's power needs.Bertster7 wrote:
Why not just have centralised power generation facilities in countries with nuclear energy already providing the power to other people? Surely a multinational electrical network would cost less than all the corrupt IAEA regulation and be a more effective means for keeping nuclear power out of the hands of less stable nations.
Yeah... but unfortunately things didn't work out too well for the USSR. Monopolies will always exist regardless... The best solution is often passed up simply for monetary and political reasons alone.Bertster7 wrote:
Only in the context of Europe. In Europe it is perfectly feasible for most nations to have their own nuclear power facilities. Alternatively an EU pwoer commission where all countries pay a bit more into the EU and a group answering to the EU provide the power, thus avoiding any national monopoly - but creating a horrible amount of bureacracy.CameronPoe wrote:
Because that's like handing a lucrative monopoly to France. Nice but impractical.Bertster7 wrote:
Why not just have centralised power generation facilities in countries with nuclear energy already providing the power to other people? Surely a multinational electrical network would cost less than all the corrupt IAEA regulation and be a more effective means for keeping nuclear power out of the hands of less stable nations.
I'd have thought Russia stood to gain the most with a system like that.
~ W
Loss through transmission over long distances. It'd be more energy-efficient to have them more widely distributed.Bertster7 wrote:
Why not just have centralised power generation facilities in countries with nuclear energy already providing the power to other people? Surely a multinational electrical network would cost less than all the corrupt IAEA regulation and be a more effective means for keeping nuclear power out of the hands of less stable nations.
well if we would have pumped half of the hundreds of billions of dollars we've spent on destroying rebuilding Iraq on research, who's to say we wouldn't be closer to clean energy alternatives?
Good point.CommieChipmunk wrote:
well if we would have pumped half of the hundreds of billions of dollars we've spent on destroying rebuilding Iraq on research, who's to say we wouldn't be closer to clean energy alternatives?