| Re: Bush Takes Back State of the Union Speech [message #190683 is a reply to message #188253] |
Tue, 21 February 2006 08:55   |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma:
|
Colonel |
|
|
Actually, yes, it is nicer. It's a hell of a lot safer, too; nuclear power stations have a much lower accident rate than do oil-fired plants. Not only that, but the same mass of fuel that will last a nuclear plant for months takes an oil plant mere MINUTES to burn through (though Uranium is, admittedly, a more limited resource). Both types have roughly the same conversion efficiency (+/- 60%), which is the current known limit for systems which use superheated steam to turn a turbine. Nuclear plants do not produce the same volume of pollution that conventional plants do; the only problem that exists right now is that of finding a place to store the radioactive waste. Nuclear plants will also work anywhere, unlike other alternatives such as solar, hydroelectric, and wind.
Until fusion finally gets up on its legs, nuclear fission is the best option we've got to kill dependance on fossil fuel power (including coal as well, which is still the dominant source).
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
