New Mars Forums

I completely disagree  ???

i hope youre kidding 

_ extra time to let it sit on someone desk.

Lloyd Harbor is rich.  what uptight rich snobs want a nuclear plant in their backyard, regardless of its safety.  There should be a five mile buffer around a plant anyway, regardless of how safe it is...a power plant is a power plant.

Well, it's sent.  Let's see if they write back.  At nuclearspace.com, mauk2 suggested i send it to bill o'reilly.  Hmmm, maybe I should 

i understand why, it assumed that anything above a certain mean temperature is habitable, and didnt take into account a maximum mean temperature.  i dont think that would be too hard to fix.

http://www.lihistory.com/9/hs9shore.htm

the very same island i live on  ???

how about the vast majority that said that the blast in lebanon was a failed missile?

caltech, do you leave a football game in the second quarter to be the first one out?

changes will be made when a democratic congress returns.  it will only be another two years.  people cant be dumb enough to re-elect a president who has led us into recession.

I watched your anti-nuclear video, and I did not agree with many of the views presented.

First of all, I will start by saying I am a 15 year old who is very interested in space development and exploration, and the increasing energy needs of humanity.  My belief from my research is that nuclear power is the answer to both ends.  Using modern designs and innovations, which were not mentioned in your video, smaller, more efficient nuclear plants can be built that produce more power.  They also use less fuel, and destroy the vast majority of their own waste, including existing waste, which eliminates the need for high level wastes (which, by the greatest estimates I have seen, have a maximum of an 88.000 year decay time, which is a tiny fraction of the waste generated, and would be destroyed using new reactors anyway).  The reactors you portrayed are 50 years old, and you are correct, they are dinosaurs.  Why?  New designs have not been allowed to be built by groups who are anti-nuclear for a number of reasons.  The fossil fuel industry is among them, because they benefit from nuclear power not being implemented.

Furthermore, the dangers of meltdowns are also addressed in new designs.  For example, the Westinghouse designs incorporate safeguards that include emergency coolant tanks that can keep an overheated reactor cooled indefinitely.  The Chernobyl meltdown was the result of a risky Russian design that never should have been built.  But nuclear engineers have learned from their mistakes and have designed new, better plants.  Three Mile Island was an accident nearly 30 years ago.  Automobile accidents kill more people than both of these accidents combined every year.  Should we stop automobile construction? 

Our submarines have operated for 50 years without a meltdown or explosion.  That's a pretty good record.  Our spacecraft that run on nuclear power have not melted down, or killed anybody.  Even if they did, the radiation they emit would be mostly harmless, and on the grand scale, insignificant compared to the radiation we experience every day.  Should we ban MRIs and X-Rays too? 

Fossil fuel plants emit more radiation and kill more people each year than nuclear plants.  In fact, a fossil fuel plant emits more radiation than a nuclear plant, because the coal and oil used contains radioatctive material.  These plants send greenhouse gases and pollution into our air, while nuclear power releases steam.  New designs also produce hydrogen for fuel cells, and water for irrigation, among other things.  While reducing the output of greenhouse gases, we also reduce the output of smog and other nasty pollutants, and gain more power.

Now, onto solar and wind power.  I am a strong supporter of everybody placing solar panels on their homes.  For one thing, it reduces costs for electricity, heating, and cooling.  It also reduces the power demand on a nuclear reactor, which lowers the already small chance for a meltdown.  Power reserves are increased, which is a benefit in case of an emergency situation that requires greater power output.  Wind power is also a very nice aid to nuclear power, but the sheer area needed to provide a significant amount of power is too great for it to be a viable primary power source.  Solar and wind power would be great to augment nuclear power. 

I mentioned that I was interested in space development.  Nuclear power would allow us to travel faster, and with greater payloads.  Obviously, this would allow a new era in the space industry.  I don't know what the opinion of Greenpeace is on space travel, but I feel that the expansion of humanity is critical, if nothing else, to conserve the resources on Earth. A single asteroid can provide trillions of dollars worth of pricless materials if mined.  Nuclear power will allow us to traverse interplanetary distances with manned missions.  Our spacecraft that have left the solar system were powered by nuclear power.  Chemical propulsion is completely insufficient for interplanetary travel, for many reasons I won't delve into.  New "spaceplanes"  are being proposed, for which nuclear power would be a great asset.

Nuclear power could be misused, as can anything else.  Fire can be used to cook, or it can be used to kill.  Pardon the analogy, but this is my feeling on the issue.  Yes, nuclear weapons are a bad thing, but things are always manipulated, so why should we not also enjoy the good benefits?  New reactors are designed to use all the material they contain, so weapons grade material would not result.  I am, like any reasonable person, against nuclear weapons, but this should not be confused with being anti-nuclear power.  I have said in the past to many people, who have agreed, that reactors could be built with monitoring equipment that ensures that no illegal weapons producing goes on at a nuclear plant.  North Korea belied its intentions when it removed all monitoring equipment. It was not seeking power, it is seeking weapons.  This is a tragic smearing of the nuclear industry.

I truly hope you consider what I have said.  I would be receptive to any material that you could provide that would convince me that nuclear power is completely unsafe.  However, if the data is based on old technology, I will repeat what I have said: we have advanced.  I do not advocate nuclear power because I am anti-environment, I advocate it because I care about our environment.

Sincerely,
Peter Laumann

***Theres my letter to Greenpeace.  any thoughts?  a lot of it is my own research, a lot of it is based on stuff ive heard on these forums and at nuclearspace.

Solar energy at this point cant be converted very well.  However, I'm a big fan of putting solar panels on everybodys roof to augment our other power sources, much like wind power can augment other power sources.  Not to mention, these panels would lower electric costs, heating costs, and cooling costs. 

I live in New York, and it solar power and wind power just wont meet the energy needs of the Northeast.  Nuclear power, at least here is the way to go.  Theres no reason not to use the solar panels like i mentioned, it lowers the chance of a meltdown by reducing power demand, increases the power reserves in case of an emergency situation, and so on.

Like ive said before, the man has said he would use WMDs against israel, inspectors have reported biological weapons in Iraq, hes thrown out inspectors before, he was wishy washy this time.

ive read reports that have said we have information but have not released it, from what i deem to be reliable sources.  the guy used biological weapons on his own people.  he condems the US in every speech.  the guy prides himself on being stalinist, and a military dictator.  theres no logic to my argument?