|
Post by acid on Nov 5, 2006 20:49:35 GMT 10
I myself will be pissed off if the government introduces Nuclear power to Australia.
Edit: Question should be "What method of energy production should be predominately used in Australia?"
|
|
|
Post by [OXSC] ShadowWolf on Nov 5, 2006 22:18:00 GMT 10
Usually the Greenies are a little out there for me but I think this time they may be right. We have so much wind and sun why do we need Nuclear. I saw this little asian lady almost get pulled off her feet when she tried to put her umbrella up during winter in Brisbane. THe layout of the Queenstreet Mall makes it one huge wind tunnel, lol.
|
|
|
Post by LeFtBehinD on Nov 5, 2006 23:49:47 GMT 10
Yeah I dont know why they dont spend billions on constructing 10,000 windmills to create enough energy to power my electric toothbrush. Those hippy greenies are on to something.
|
|
|
Post by -Vi2- IriDiuM on Nov 6, 2006 7:27:39 GMT 10
Yeah, im with alan on the wind farms. Seems to me that you need like 6 windmills to power 1 house. Thats a fuckload of windmills to power the country. Especially when they need special areas (constant high winds) to operate properly.
Solar is an ok idea, except obviously it can only be used during the day. Geothermal shouldnt even be there cause that needs Volcanoes and the like to work, and we dont have any. You'll never get enough Biomass to fuel the entire country, unless you want to start burning the food we eat as well. So that leaves Fossil fuels and Nuclear fission. Obviously the coal is gonna run out, and its terrible for the atmosphere. And fusion is not a theory, it works. Its just the the only place it works atm as a sustained reaction is in the middle of the sun. Its not very practical, since the energy required to get to that temperature is higher than the amount of energy the fusion reaction produces.
So that leaves nuclear. Thats not renewable either (actually it is, with breeder reactors, but im not gonna go into that), but hey, we got shitloads of uranium, why not use it? We're only giving it to other countries so they can use it in reactors anyway. By the time we run ourselves out of uranium, we might have cracked the secret to fusion.
|
|
|
Post by acid on Nov 6, 2006 10:14:25 GMT 10
by theory i meant that it hasnt exactly been applied yet...i know it exists.....
brenton you skipped hydroelectric....
with a combination of solar, hydroelectric and wind surely the country can power itselft.....even if each family has to atleast provide some of their own power with solar panels.....every house should have its own water tank to collect water so why shouldnt every house have its own solar panel? i know it sounds rediculous but its viable...
|
|
|
Post by LeFtBehinD on Nov 6, 2006 11:25:26 GMT 10
by theory i meant that it hasnt exactly been applied yet...i know it exists..... brenton you skipped hydroelectric.... with a combination of solar, hydroelectric and wind surely the country can power itselft.....even if each family has to atleast provide some of their own power with solar panels.....every house should have its own water tank to collect water so why shouldnt every house have its own solar panel? i know it sounds rediculous but its viable... Let me give you an idea of how much energy you get from a household size solar panel. I read recently that we would use more energy creating the panel than you would ever get back from it in its entire lifetime. Have a think about cities and business, factories etc.. that use constant shitloads of energy, theres no way in hell that you could power that with anything but fossil fuels and nuclear power.
|
|
|
Post by [OXSC] ShadowWolf on Nov 6, 2006 13:59:26 GMT 10
What we need is a really big extension cable pluged into the sun =P
|
|
|
Post by -Vi2- Canadian on Nov 6, 2006 15:44:45 GMT 10
i went to click on the standard joke answer when i realised there wasn't one so i went wind, i like wind farms
|
|
|
Post by -Vi2- IriDiuM on Nov 6, 2006 19:04:26 GMT 10
Oh yeah, hydro. Hippies hate hydro, believe it or not. despite that its emmision-free, it screws up the rivers that is uses to produce the power. Its pretty feasable though, i think something like 90% of Tasmania is powered by hydroelectricity. But its got a similar problem to wind, you need specific areas to put a hydro plant in, and im not sure theres enough sites to power everything. But i could be wrong. I think Las vegas is powered by the Hoover Dam, and thats all hydroelectric. But thats a MASSIVE dam, and it powers just 1 city.
|
|
|
Post by [OXSC] ShadowWolf on Nov 6, 2006 19:25:16 GMT 10
We're in the worse draught in years, at least in QLD, I really don't think Hydro is feasable.
|
|
|
Post by -Vi2- IriDiuM on Nov 6, 2006 20:01:58 GMT 10
Good point, i didnt even think of that. Drought = dry rivers = no water to generate electricity with.
|
|
|
Post by acid on Nov 6, 2006 21:00:49 GMT 10
yeah however its funny that i notice on TV an advertisement for Wet'n'Wild....theyd wanna be recycling water there or something....
i heard something about waves as a source of power....
alan how big is household sized solar panel? what if a houses entire roof consisted of solar panels? i know its far fetched but put possibilites like that along with a mixture of larger scale solarplants. wind farms and hydroelectricity, as i said surely its enough to power australia....surely there is enough natural power out there....
all i am saying is that there are plenty of viable options which provide power without causing as much damage than nuclear and fossil fuels...
|
|
|
Post by -Vi2- IriDiuM on Nov 6, 2006 21:13:20 GMT 10
Nuclear doesnt cause damage. Its actually very clean.
|
|
|
Post by -Vi2- Canadian on Nov 6, 2006 22:36:00 GMT 10
unless a terrorist blows it up
|
|
|
Post by Scruffy Dog on Nov 7, 2006 1:41:03 GMT 10
unless a terrorist blows it up That's why I chose Hydro
|
|
|
Post by -Vi2- IriDiuM on Nov 7, 2006 8:15:29 GMT 10
You know the size of bomb you'd need to actually pierce a reactor? They have tonnes and tonnes of concrete to keep the radiation in, that same concrete menas you'd need a plane to crash into it to have much effect. And we know how much we guard our planes now.... And dont think putting a bomb in a nuclear power statoin will turn it into a nuclear bomb. No way. Worst that would happen would be a massive radiation leak, which is bad yes, but nothing like a bomb.
|
|
|
Post by LeFtBehinD on Nov 7, 2006 10:23:18 GMT 10
Brenton knows his shit. Now lets all embrace nuclear power!
|
|
|
Post by Scruffy Dog on Nov 7, 2006 10:57:04 GMT 10
Only if they hire Brenton as a security guard.
Cause then I can be sure they'll have 24/7 security.
|
|
|
Post by acid on Nov 7, 2006 17:04:15 GMT 10
it may be very clean but it does produce alot of nuclear waste...and where do they store this nuclear waste?
|
|
|
Post by [OXSC] ShadowWolf on Nov 7, 2006 19:07:39 GMT 10
In a missle bound for Korea of course =P
|
|
|
Post by acid on Nov 7, 2006 22:52:54 GMT 10
i actually did hear about this mine shaft in some country...its the deepest tunnel underground and they have like reinforced this room down there with a type of metal and at the moment its in it test phase...what they are doing is they are storing nuclear waste down there and seeing if after a certain amount of years whether the carefully stored barrels of waste (which are like wrapped in some kinda bubble wrap, im sure its a bit more sophisticated than that) are leaking or what not and whether the room is still secure and safe and whether the above enviroment has been affected...apparently deep enough to survive rediculous amounts of harsh conditions above ground....but im not sure....
still im sure there is a valid point as to why they cant launch the waste into space.....it could be that theres a possibility of it coming back to hit earth or ending up in orbit covering our atmosphere in waste but i havnt heard a good valid explanation yet...
in the long run brenton...if solar, hydro and wind power were all more efficient would you not choose them over nuclear?
|
|
|
Post by -Vi2- Canadian on Nov 7, 2006 23:40:51 GMT 10
cause like, launching shit into space is very affordable... if it was we'd send our garbage into the sun and forget about it
|
|
|
Post by acid on Nov 8, 2006 3:25:11 GMT 10
id send your mum into the sun bitch!
|
|
|
Post by -Vi2- Canadian on Nov 8, 2006 13:02:25 GMT 10
im gonna tell her u said that
|
|
|
Post by -Vi2- IriDiuM on Nov 8, 2006 14:15:02 GMT 10
I'd rather have a few nuclear plants, even dealing with the waste (which would be pretty simple, we have massive amounts of desert to store it under) then pollute every spare spot of land with windmills and solar panels, and clogging every river with a dam.
|
|
|
Post by acid on Nov 8, 2006 14:32:39 GMT 10
nancy loves me dont tell her that!
but as i said...more efficient would require less solar panels, windmills and dams....
|
|
|
Post by LeFtBehinD on Nov 8, 2006 15:56:11 GMT 10
I dont understand how theres still a debate. We can not power what we need with anything but Nuclear power. If Australia dont take it on we'll go back to the dark ages to the rest of the world.
|
|
|
Post by -Vi2- BournE on Jan 22, 2007 23:47:58 GMT 10
australia could run off my sex drive shebanG!
|
|
|
Post by Scruffy Dog on Jan 23, 2007 2:31:03 GMT 10
Bourne = William Hung?
|
|
|
Post by neVyn on Jan 24, 2007 10:56:04 GMT 10
just cause you have a sex drive doesnt mean your gettin any hahaha
|
|