Energy supply is more important than climate change (SMALL)

[fireofenergy]

The light water reactor sucks ... ABANDON IT!

LFTR is ALL we need to power the planet.

There is NO high pressure, no fuel rods, no need for back up generators, 1/100th the wastes which last only 1/1,000ths as long. No possibility of meltdown because it is already a molten salt reactor, and fissions abundant thorium which is harder to make weapons out of.

If we are going to do nuclear, do it right!

LFTR

[patilan420]

Nuclear enrgy= police state= NO, thank U!

Why?

Because it is a military technology, demands high levels of organization, control and security, because endangeres some people more than others AND because as a bi-product of the technology U end up with materials perfect for nuclear WEAPONS! so, NO I dont nead nukes, I have all I nead for my living- a garden, a beehive and a horse

[samann95014]

i agree. energy supply is more important than climate change.

[Metalgear55]

ShwangShwing < Do you believe everything you hear?!

Grow up kid!

Whats next?! You believe that Al gore is true on this too?!

hehe

[Damsinho007]

From what I've read, it can supply the worlds electricity for about ten million years.

[ShwangShwing]

If we change all our energy supply to nuclear and taking into account the increasing demand for energy how long will the uranium deposits in the earth last?

[christo930]

Breeder reactors are supposed to create more fuel than they use. Right now enriched uranium is cheaper, but as Uranium supplies dwindle, breeder reactors will become more cost effective.

[Metalgear55]

I agree, people cant change the climate!!

The climate have changed for 100000 years, so of course so no people can change the climate!!!

[ShwangShwing]

Of course they can... You don't beleive AAAS and IPCC? They are scientists, this is their job. What's your education? Even if you're climatologist you can't claim to know more then theese two scientific organizations. Sure they can got it wrong... everyone can, but it is way more probbable they got it right then you.

[ArgumentativeGuy]

FUCKED UP

Global Warming is NATURAL

WE CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT

[roidroid]

"the author ... makes no representation or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this film."

lol

[NobodysFuel]

Roidroid,

Maybe you should read the disclaimer from Al Gore's movie:

"...By accessing or linking to this Website, you assume the risk that the information on this Website may be incomplete, inaccurate, out of date..."

[roidroid]

That's a disclaimer for the website, not the movie.

[greyflcn]

I like nuclear, except I don't like fission. I prefer fusion.

We already have a safe fusion generator called "The Sun"

We just need to use it more.

[DrBuzz0]

yeah.. only it produces nowehere near the amount of energy needed to sustain current needs much less future. At least not at the concentrations needed. Covering a large portion of the earth with solar cells is not very likely.

[greyflcn]

==only it produces nowehere near the amount of energy needed to sustain current needs much less future.==

Says who?

greyfalcon. net/ greenenergy.png

greyfalcon. net/ solarthermal

[steadydecline]

I'm all about going back to the Middle Ages. Dude, they had nice swords, horses, and beautiful women. I mean, really... maybe this is a blessing in disguise.

[jackson32]

Using fast breeder reactors and a method called nuclear reprocessing nuclear reactors can produce at least 30 times more energy per unit of fuel than current reactors, and the fuel can last millions of years. Also this method uses up much more of the radioactivity, so much so that the spent fuel will lose 98 percent of it's radioactivity in 600 years when it will have the same radioactivity as many surrounding rocks.

[packrat76]

I heard something about that..was it France, I'm thinking, that developed this technology? Got any links on that I can read up on?

[jackson32]

Google "the nuclear energy option" and click on the first result.

[hopit]

Nuclear power is non-renewable. Also we are facing the global depletion of water, forests, minerals, fisheries, soil, etc. An indicator of sustainability is how much we consume compared to the earth's capacity to regenerate. Humans are currently consuming 120-130% of the earth's regenerative capacity. To allow for bio diversity a reasonable target might be 20%. A high-energy economy is what enables us to consume to so much.

[hopit]

At every point in time we've had the ability to live sustainibly. The solution is to consume less than the regenerative capacity of the earth. To focus on the supply side rather than conservation, is faulty ecological economics - like someone in serious debt, despite the fact that they have a reasonable income. Then this person (perhaps on the faulty logic that any reduction in their spending would doom them to unhappiness) suggests that the best solution is to make more money.