chernobyl, 3 mile island, hippies, green peace retards, etcFatherTed wrote:
So, why don't more countries invest in nuke power.
This? Ages to type?FatherTed wrote:
This has taken me fucking ages to type, with the help of ff spellcheck. Too wasted.
So, why don't more countries invest in nuke power. France do it, quite well. For the UK, it's the sad NIMBT attitude. post up. Adv and Dis adv pls.
x
you have no ideachittydog wrote:
This? Ages to type?FatherTed wrote:
This has taken me fucking ages to type, with the help of ff spellcheck. Too wasted.
So, why don't more countries invest in nuke power. France do it, quite well. For the UK, it's the sad NIMBT attitude. post up. Adv and Dis adv pls.
x
Last edited by TheAussieReaper (2009-02-12 18:42:09)
how so?Deadmonkiefart wrote:
I have done much research on this very topic. Nuclear power is more expensive than almost other alternatives. It is more expensive than wind, solar, hydroelectric, and most other forms of power generation. That, and it can be dangerous. Why spend more money for something that produces radioactive waste and has the potential to explode when there are safer, cheaper alternatives?
Last edited by Pubic (2009-02-12 19:12:19)
I wouldn't exactly call the Ruskies western.Pubic wrote:
Problems dealing with waste, risk from earthquakes, consequences of catastrophic reactor failure (now not such an issue). In our local case we have plenty of renewable power sources (hydro, wind, geothermal, and a big tidal project soon), the earthquake risk is quite pronounced (pacific rim) and a couple of incidents involving other western nations in the 80s have given it a bad rep.
Too bad it's not actually a nuclear power plant, or anything remotely similar. Unless you count "they both use radioactive stuff".Kmarion wrote:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=114147
Go right ahead.
Its still way to large to use for power armourKmarion wrote:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=114147
Go right ahead.
Never said it was but it is a "nuclear option". You skeptical? NO WAY!Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Too bad it's not actually a nuclear power plant, or anything remotely similar. Unless you count "they both use radioactive stuff".Kmarion wrote:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=114147
Go right ahead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_battery
Besides the fact that it's not on topic, the laughably short time period to estimated production combined with the lack of info on their site about the technology behind it makes me severely skeptical. If it sounds too good to be true, it is.
Lotta_Drool wrote:
Cameron put a thread on here a while back in which the Irish created a perpetual motion energy generator distiller.
Thread topic is the problems in developing nuclear energy, to which I replied a problem is the not in my backyard mentality, to which you reply with something that isn't nuclear, and therefore you are wrong my good sir, good day.Kmarion wrote:
Never said it was but it is a "nuclear option". You skeptical? NO WAY!Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Too bad it's not actually a nuclear power plant, or anything remotely similar. Unless you count "they both use radioactive stuff".Kmarion wrote:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=114147
Go right ahead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_battery
Besides the fact that it's not on topic, the laughably short time period to estimated production combined with the lack of info on their site about the technology behind it makes me severely skeptical. If it sounds too good to be true, it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_Power_GenerationFlaming_Maniac wrote:
Thread topic is the problems in developing nuclear energy, to which I replied a problem is the not in my backyard mentality, to which you reply with something that isn't nuclear, and therefore you are wrong my good sir, good day.Kmarion wrote:
Never said it was but it is a "nuclear option". You skeptical? NO WAY!Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Too bad it's not actually a nuclear power plant, or anything remotely similar. Unless you count "they both use radioactive stuff".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_battery
Besides the fact that it's not on topic, the laughably short time period to estimated production combined with the lack of info on their site about the technology behind it makes me severely skeptical. If it sounds too good to be true, it is.
Better skeptical than accepting.
Sure.. negative nancy.New nuclear reactor design
Hyperion has filed application #20040062340 for patent protection in the United States for a unique modular nuclear reactor design that they have developed. In November 2008, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) indicated that investigation of the design is not expected to begin until February 2009 and that they expect "that it will take significant time to ensure safety requirements."