Re: Today's debate - Nuclear power
 

Mean I wont have to stop for petrol :D How much would 10 kg of uranium take me?

How much do the nuclear subs use?

Matt

Re: Today's debate - Nuclear power
 

and herein lies the problem...

you are aware that it's impossible for the material used in nuclear reactors to produce a nuclear explosion aren't you?;) - it's actually very difficult to produce an atomic bomb, the circumstances have to be just right for the reaction to occur

Wikipedia says so

NMRI anyone?:rolleyes:

Re: Today's debate - Nuclear power
 

Re: Today's debate - Nuclear power
 

My step brother died as a result of Sellafield, so naturally I'm a bit cautious about it, but I think operated properly, it's probably the most sensible/realistic solution to the supposed looming energy crisis (it's already 30 years later than predicted ;)). If battery performance improves (as I'm sure it will), battery powered small cars, with the batteries being recharged from electricity created by nuclear power seems an ideal alternative to most peoples' second cars and should help cut down the speed at which we use up petrol. Not to mention the insanely good performance of some battery powered motorbikes.

Re: Today's debate - Nuclear power
 

true, electric cars can't work right now because they're ultimately coal powered and battery technology is frankly, crap. hydrogen fuel is nothing of the sort, it costs you at least as much energy to produce the hydrogen as you get back when you burn it, in reality the losses would be significant. hydrogen would make a good energy storage medium though if we can overcome the dangers of keeping pressurised explosives in objects that crash into each other on a regular basis:D

Re: Today's debate - Nuclear power
 

You know, i was just thinking about the term Magnetic Nuclear Resonance Imaging and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging aswell

Leave out the nuclear, and everyone dosnt mind it

Mogs, your right; we can do more but so many people dont want it in their vicintiy (NIMBY attitude). Personally, I wuldnt mind a few wind-turbines scattered along the coastline where I live, if it helps to reduce the engery costs and reduce the use of non-renewable sources. Its a small sacrifice, and they dont disrupt anything too much. Out to sea, they could even be a place for new marine ecosystems to grow, much like what happens on sunken ships and things

Matt

Re: Today's debate - Nuclear power
 

Imagine being able to drive around the world on a 'tank' of fuel. That would make doing a 'charley and ewan' so much easier. Love the idea :)

Re: Today's debate - Nuclear power
 

dont know , but i know the limiting factor on the length of time under water is the crew and the space to keep fres rations (water is made on ship from waste water)

Re: Today's debate - Nuclear power
 

that's why it was dropped, "Magnetic Resonance Imaging" makes no sense without the Nuclear, but to anyone who didn't understand how the process works, and that it's nothing to do with radioactivity, would freak out when told they were having a nuclear scan:smt120

Re: Today's debate - Nuclear power
 

Good, you have the damn things then. I'm not against wind energy per se, nor even in my back yard. It's the amount of turbines needed to make a difference. They turn the area where you live into a massive industrial landscape - not what folks who live here want to see, hear or walk and ride around. The economics of wind power are well dodgy, as are their green credentials.

I'm all for nuclear, it is well managed in this country. The French have the right idea, went for nuclear in a big way and don't need to rely so much on fossil fuels. We need to tell the green lobby to get lost and go for it big style as well - as we should have done in the 80's and 90's.