So, do you still think that nuclear power plants are a good idea?

by I quit! 37 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  I quit!
• 

  elder-schmelder

  YES
• 

  Elgiard

  Naturally.
• 

  beatthesystem

  We don't have much of a choice, if we desire to continue to receive the benefits of electricity without spewing carbon into the atmosphere. Even in Japan's case, we are dealing with early generation reactor designs that are over 40 years old and were not designed to take the seismic hit these have taken (followed by an epic tsunami), and it seems that the situation will be contained, and the radiation released will not be disastrous.

  New reactor designs have far greater passive safety.
• 

  ProdigalSon

  Considering that we could be using a host of alternatives to produce energy that leave NO radioactive waste and cost next to nothing, i.e Tesla "free energy", hydrogen, solar, wind turbine or water power, nuclear power plants are a bad idea, and an even worse one when they are built in earthquake zones.

  Not to worry though, disclosure is coming and Exxon Mobil will be out of business, along with the Bin Laden's, Bush's, Rockefeller's, et al......
• 

  beatthesystem

  i.e Tesla "free energy"

  Sorry to disagree, but this is pseudoscience. There is no "free energy", at least that has been discovered by science. I recommend you read up on the laws of thermodynamics.

  hydrogen

  Unless we mine the atmosphere of Jupiter, hydrogen is an energy storage medium, not an energy generation one. There is almost no free hydrogen on earth. It is nearly all locked up in strong chemical bonds with other elements.

  water power

  We are using almost all available sources of hydro power as is. There is very little room for increased production in developed countries, and no where near what is needed to replace nuclear or coal.
• 

  ProdigalSon

  Oh geez, BurntheShips is back....

  It's only "pseudoscience" because it is SUPPRESSED by the SELFISH ELITE, but you don't believe they exist, so there's no point arguing with you over it....

  http://www.waterpoweredcar.com/

  http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/hydrogen-powered-cars.htm

  http://educate-yourself.org/fe/radiantenergystory.shtml

  http://www.nuenergy.org/Tesla%27sFreeEnergyRevealed/HarnessingTheRaysOfTheSun.htm
• 

  straightshooter

  Yes, just not near me.
• 

  Simon

  Yes, probably not built on an island situated in the "ring-of-fire" that is prone to earthquakes though.
• 

  beatthesystem

  Hello Prodigal Son.

  It's only "pseudoscience" because it is SUPPRESSED by the SELFISH ELITE

  Do you mean the same selfish elites that allow those websites you link to, to stay up?

  Hydrogen powered cars are real. However, WHERE does the hydrogen come from? Like I said, hydrogen is a form of energy storage, not energy production. Think of a hydrogen tank in a car as being the equivalent of a battery. A battery needs to be charged from a power source for a car to run. It is not in and of itself a power source, it is a storage medium. A hydrogen tank needs to be supplied with hydrogen, which is also created from a power source. This is usually water, which needs to be "cracked," generally using electrolysis. You get less energy out than you put in, however, not much different from a battery.

  Regarding "free energy", we have not yet demonstrated such an energy source in science. Please produced peer reviewed papers, and I will consider it.

  You are linking to some quack inventions on water powered cars.

  Here is a wiki page on it, doubtless edited by the selfish elites:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car

  This article focuses on vehicles that claim to extract chemical potential energy directly from water. Water is fully oxidized hydrogen. Hydrogen itself is a high-energy, flammable substance, but its useful energy is released when water is formed—water will not burn. The process of electrolysis, discussed below, would split water into hydrogen and oxygen, but it takes as much energy to take apart a water molecule as was released when the hydrogen was oxidized to form water. In fact, some energy would be lost in converting water to hydrogen and then burning the hydrogen because some heat would always be produced in the conversions. Releasing chemical energy from water would therefore violate the first and/or second laws of thermodynamics. [5] [6] [7] [8]