Staredit Network

in theory it's possible to hold it in a powerful magnetic field. the Japaneese (i think) made it run a fiew seconds. so, you just need to get it started & then it will provide itself with energy for the magnetic field.

8 feet of dirt wont stop radiation 100%.....

Well the point realy is nuclear power will be taken cuz in the short term it is better... Maybe not enviormentaly.. But it produces more energy and it is cheaper to build nuclear power plants rather then to build thousands of other facilities....

How's a nuclear power plant worse environmentally?

[-] 95% of the nuclear waste can be recycled to be reused.
[-] "Eight feet of dirt wont stop radiation 100%". Look, buddy, the Sun puts out a ton of radiation. You have a this-ray and a that-ray and a this-that-ray coming every-which-way from the sun. And you've been exposed to the Sun for your lifetime. Do you have cancer yet? Nope. You'll won't get any more radiation than standing in the sun, buddy. So it wont hurt you or anybody else environmentally.

There is a thing called the ozone layer, which blocks all gamma and some beta radiation. That is why we don't die from radiation from the sun.

He means for general electricity. Wind forces push against an object (Like a windmill), that object usually spins, and generates a turbine. That turbine generates energy and stores it for our use. We can't really depend on wind too much though.

Oh, and about Coal vs Nuclear, we actually had to write an essay on it a few months back:

Coal vs. Nuclear power
There are many disadvantages and advantages of using coal power over nuclear and nuclear over coal. Coal power is the burning of coal to heat water, creating steam which spins a turbine and activates the generator. Nuclear power is the splitting of uranium atoms to generate heat, heating water and producing steam spinning a turbine just like coal factories. Both have benefits, but both can be harmful, like pollution production for coal and meltdowns in Nuclear. Most of Pennsylvania’s power is from these two sources.
Coal power plants are common all over the United States. Coal power plants are a lot safer to work in then Nuclear power plants. Coal is very common but will not last us forever. The worst disadvantage of a coal power plant is the pollution it produces. The smoke coming out of the factory is hazardous to the environment. Being heated, the water discharge from the factory may harm the fish since it contains less oxygen.
Nuclear power plants are very successful in power producing. They are very hazardous when it comes to meltdowns, explosions, and reactions though. If a meltdown were to occur, workers might lose their lives and even the people that live near. Since the power plants produce radioactive material, the air will become contaminated and poison a lot of people surrounding the area. Nuclear power plants do not produce any kind of pollution to the air, unless as mentioned a meltdown occurs. The water discharge from nuclear power plants also can harm the fish species in the area.
Many other alternates are not efficient enough to produce power in the state. Wind and solar are great alternatives, not producing any kind of pollution. They both are not the type to depend on though. Pennsylvania can be or can not be a windy at certain times and other it will not be windy at all. The solar problems is that since we are far from the equator and it’s winter, it would be hard getting all of the solar providings.
Nuclear and coal are the most reliable power providers in our area. We cannot alter the disadvantages of each though, and we have no other choice. We will have to live with what we have and enjoy it, but we need to find ways to prevent pollution and meltdowns from occurring. Coal pollution can be reduced by having many smoke filters and scrubbers. Nuclear meltdowns can be prevented by having max surveillance on the control room at all times. In an opinion from me, nuclear power would be a lot better in my opinion. There are a lot of uranium atoms, and we can solve meltdown issues with max surveillance.


^Oh, and since that's for school, it probably isn't 100% logic .

Correct for the most part except about the safety. Nuclear power has had less deaths than any plant related with fossil fuels. To be more accurate, it would be the magnitude of a nuclear mistake is much larger than that of a coal power mistake.

nuclear power may have less deaths in deneral, but think what will hapen later.
think about tomorrow.

Hey, they can make oil! Ever heard of thermal depolymerization? =P

The "non-renewable" resources aren't actually non-renewable, they just aren't renewable at the rate at which they are consumed. They will become depleted in time but it is possible to make more.

I'm all for nuclear power. It's safe, clean(as long at nothing goes wrong), and produces alot of power. As far as nuclear waste in concered, the first thing that comes to mind is shooting it off into space and forgetting I ever saw it. Into the sun perhaps. =)

to restore the amount of petroalim used in a day, it would take 3000 years

thats a loooonnnnngggg time for gas

Yes, that's what my initial thought was, but what if we found a very efficient way to use that waste? Wouldn't we come to regret throwing it into space?

Heated water from factories (any, including Nuclear) can harm underwater life if they are present. Unterwater life love cold water since it contains more oxygen, and they can die if it's too warm.