Title: Nuclear Stuff
the oob - September 16, 2005 10:51 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Adolf Chiang @ Sep 15 2005, 10:38 PM) |
| QUOTE (the oob @ Sep 15 2005, 10:30 PM) | | QUOTE (Adolf Chiang @ Sep 15 2005, 10:26 PM) | | QUOTE (the oob @ Sep 15 2005, 10:14 PM) | | I believe this is the thread you want. Here I amuse myself by arguing in favour of American hegemony and nuclear weapons as counter-intuitive means of securing peace. |
I'm not surprised at all. There is no balance of power in this world.
|
And let's hope it remains that way. Remember what happened the last times there was something close to a balance of power? The Napoleonic Wars, World War I, World War II, the Cold War. I'd rather have the US kick the shit out of some crappy third world nation once in a while than have any more global wars.
|
There was a balance of power in Cold War and because of all the nukes it didn't go hot. India and Pakistan fought three wars until their both got nukes and decided not to escalate further.
|
The credit for the Cold War staying cold (and it didn't really, it just got fought in small battleground nations) goes more to the deterrant effect of nuclear weapons rather than the balance of power. Same for India and Pakistan as you've noted. At the moment, we have one nation that can kick the shit out of everyone should it choose to, which prevents other nations from springing up and taking over all their neighbours. It's certainly not perfect, but it's working out better than most of recent history.
Adolf Chiang - September 16, 2005 10:57 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Boy Wonder @ Sep 16 2005, 10:42 PM) |
| I am anti nuclear because I like New Zealand having the image of being a clean green country. To me its what it symbolises. Regardless of whether or not nuclear energy is better/worse for the environment, if we allow it then we lose that symbolism and identity. |
I realise that the image and reputation is unique but it can't last forever, there's a chance of nuclear power being the dominant source of energy in the future (not in the near future at least).
samf - September 16, 2005 11:15 AM (GMT)
I think we should look hard at how much power we consume needlessly before we go as far as bringing nuclear power into NZ.
Adolf Chiang - September 16, 2005 11:18 AM (GMT)
We're a long way off. There's always wind power.
samf - September 16, 2005 11:20 AM (GMT)
Or the oil crash might obviate the whole issue, and our current dams might supply the (greatly reduced) population's needs for hundreds of years.
the oob - September 16, 2005 11:48 AM (GMT)
Solar satellites are the power source of the future (as seen in 'Sim City 2000', the microwave plant), the main thing standing in the way of them right now is the expense of launching payloads into space, which the
Space Elevator will solve nicely.
Solar power on Earth: crap
Solar power in space: good, because there's no atmosphere to block the light.
él_bronto - September 16, 2005 01:14 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Steveo @ Sep 9 2005, 05:20 PM) |
| Ok the microwave is radioactive too, lots of things are! I am anti-nuclear but I frear we may end up with nuclear plants in the far future as they are a very good idea. I will post some more but im in an angsty mood atm. So ill put more in later |
Microwaves are not radioactive, technically. They emit microwaves, which are harmless.
| QUOTE (Dr_Steve @ Sep 9 2005, 05:25 PM) |
well being in science, I tend to like the idea of nuclear power. The main problem associated with nuclear power isn't the risk of an accident, its the problem with what to do with the waste products.
There are some suggestions of making new kinds of power plants which can use these wastes products, and produce something less radioactive themselves, but its all speculation at the moment.
Cold fusion power plants (converting hydrogen into helium) are said to be the wave of the future. They have existed in an experimental stage for some time now, but the main problem is that the fuel is a gas, rather than a solid rod so it is much harder to contain. The experimental plants contain ionised hydrogen gas (which is basically floating protons) in a magnetic field. The problem is that the power required to produce the magnetic field is in excess of the power produced by the fusion. Of course when we get room temperature superconductors, we won't need much power at all. |
Fusion uses deuterons (proton+neutron), and can still go spectacularly wrong a la Chernobyl.
| QUOTE (templar34 @ Sep 9 2005, 10:37 PM) |
A 'clean' nuke'd be 100% efficient.
That's 8kg of U-235. Do the maths with teh Famous Einstein Equation, you get something like 7.2 x 10^16 Joules.
That's a lot. That's 7.2 x 10^7 Gigajoules. |
Are you just saying all the mass goes to energy? I'm afraid that wouldn't work. Clean means no radioactive products...
Solar satellites sound wicked. Although the space elevator might solve the nuclear waste problem, just fire it into space or the sun. Then in a few centuries you might need garbage space ships like in aliens...