i read somewhere fossil fuels will begin to expire in about 50 yrs as well

I don't have a link, sorry. But I have read somewhere (and if I get you a source [which I will] I will put it up) that it should run out pretty soon. We are currently right around peak oil production, meaning that the amount of oil we are getting from the earth is at its peak (hence the term) and will start going downhill within the next 5-10 years. There are numerous estimates, but I'm pretty sure that 50 years should be an accurate approximation. However, I could have misread, and you of course shouldn't take this as fact until I'm able to back it up.

quote:

Originally posted by finn620:
He is probably aware of the fossil fuel crisis that is going to hit us very very soon (in the next fifty years it will be totally gone)

Next fifty years? Source? Link?

Fusion is not a lot safer, and right now our technology isn't good enough for it to be a viable option. The only thing we can preform right now is hot fusion, which requires vast amounts of energy and can be pretty dangerous. I don't know that much about its byproducts though. Cold fusion requires that we get more energy than we put in, which probably isn't going to happen. If it was possible, a cold fusion generator IN THEORY could run on seawater, require little initial energy, produce no emissions, and produce no waste. We aren't anywhere near being able to do this.

Geroge Bush wants the United States to build as many nuclear reactors as possible and start building nukes again. He is probably aware of the fossil fuel crisis that is going to hit us very very soon (in the next fifty years it will be totally gone) and decided to handle it in one of the worst possible ways.

They want to bury it in Nevada, not Nebraska. sorry

I am against nuclear power, and for several reasons. First, like some other people here have said, nuclear energy can lead to the potential of developing nuclear weapons. This puts the whole world at risk. Also, with the fears of terrorist attacks these days, why would anyone want a nuclear power plant near a major metropolitan area? If an attack on a nuclear reacter were successful, hundreds of thousands of people whould be killed. Nuclear power is also damaging to the environment. It is costly to despose of the waste products and will eventually start to leak radiation, even if it is buried in a mountain in Nebraska like president Bush has proposed. Other sources of energy need to be researched and developed quickly. If nuclear power is eliminated and replaced by a more reliable and safe source, then a major hazard to the economy, people, and environment would be eliminated.

Isn't cold fusion supposed to be really good?

I did a report of fusion. it's really promising because of the amount of hydrogen isotopes in the ocean. The problem is misinformation. People think they know all about nuclear power because of fission while fusion is much different. it's ahrder to simulate, but much more effective and it's chance of disasters is low. Fission has the high rate of accidents. I think nuclear power is not th way to go though. i think finding a different way would be better. Fusion is safer, but they don't know how safe. More research needs to be done on it.

oops sorry clpo thanks for the correction!

quote:

yeah but fusion sucks we need to replace fusion with safer more reliable fission and wipe all these nuclear weapons off the face of the earth

Whoa! You've got your nuclear physics mixed up there, amp. What we've got now is fission, in other words, the splitting of an atom into two other atoms and a whole lot of energy. What we want is fusion, the creation of an atom (and a whole lot of energy) from two other atoms. Fission bad. Fusion good.

Now, nuclear power as it is, I think, is too risky. Chernobyl and Half-Mile Island stand testament to that. Plus it's so wasteful. So if we could get fusion working efficiently (which I believe we have, to a small extent), there would be no more fossil fuels burnt for energy. Fusion would be cheap and plentiful.

As for being the cleanest, I don't think nuclear energy is the cleanest. Wind and solar are. But nuclear is the cleanest and most useful form. Wind and solar power are intermittent at best and don't have a large output, even though they only take from nature. Nuclear doesn't give off any pollution yet has a very large output. Radioactive waste is the only problem.

amen LH amen

quote:

Originally posted by bauhaus:
I'm all for it, its the cleanest.

You still have radioactive waste. That's not all that clean...
And how is nuclear energy cleaner than wind or solar?

I'm all for it, its the cleanest.

yeah but fusion sucks we need to replace fusion with safer more reliable fission and wipe all these nuclear weapons off the face of the earth

I'm so sorry.

I love oil.

I find nuclear technology to be incredibly ingenious, though I would like to understand more. I would be for it except that the waste produced is too much of a problem to be a viable alternative energy source.

The system needs to be refined to make it less dangerous and find means to dispose of the unstable byproduct. Plus, nuclear energy isn't renewable, you need uranium or some other heavy element of which there is a very limmited supply.

Also, there is the issue of any nuclear technology being applicable to nuclear weapons which have so much devastating potential. Though I wonder if the world would be safer if every country had nuclear capability than just a few.

I certaintly recognize that petroleum based electricity and what-not isn't exactly a humanitarian form of energy...

There are other sources like wind, solar, and geothermal power that are effective and without the same negative impacts.

Why are you for nuclear power?