My bad dude just seen that your comment was in reply to another poster. Sorry. [emoji847]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yet another explosion
- Thread starter LimJaheyyy
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
My bad dude just seen that your comment was in reply to another poster. Sorry. [emoji847]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
? I'm not sure what you said. I was replying to a different post.
LOL my bad I just saw your bad.
Yeah sorry mate. I just re read it. I did apologise above. My bad. [emoji847] I'll be sure to re read in future. [emoji85]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
this is what you quoted...
really? what part of not learning did they not fit? if you're going to claim someone is wrong...
I didn't say that there were never any bad accidents and I did not mean to downplay Chernobyl or Fukishima. Building a nuclear power plant in a country that's near the boundary of four tectonic plates is probably a bad idea.
I used the word "directly" to try and qualify that these numbers did not include those that may end up with cancer later on. Who knows if we will ever have the final numbers.
The point that I was trying to make, and didn't spell out very well, was that compared with fossil fuels, nuclear power hasn't been worse than fossil fuels, in terms of costs, both human and environmental. As I said, I prefer solar, wind, hydro and geothermal when those are viable options.
Energy accidents - Wikipedia
Yes, Fusion reactors would be a major improvement.
Last edited:
Should fusion reactors become available that actually work with more energy out than in, it would be a big step forward. But let's not forget the health effects associated with the more conventional production of electricity with coal. "Clean coal" with emission scrubbing can help, but it's far from universally implemented worldwide. Coal still kills lots of folks every year, yet we don't see the relative risks of burning coal but are greatly concerned about the risk of nuclear power.
Not saying nukes are the answer (although they certainly can take some load off, especially with modern design and implementation, just look at France) but conventional methods of electricity production with coal is hardly without risk to health.
Consider the number of people killed (none to my knowledge) or injured from Li batteries compared to smoking. Yet vaping should be banned (in the view of some like Sen. Schumer) because of the hazard and risk of explosion. Relative risk analysis is frequently ignored in favor of the spectacular events which hold the public's attention for 10 minutes.
Nah, it's just that it took me so freaking long to type up between checking sources and making another pot of coffee that your post was way ahead of mine.
It obviously "works", as we have a sun.
Fusion is the only safe way to utilize nuclear power.
We have known this for decades.
The only reason we havent developed it yet is politics and profit.
You think its a coincidence Lockheed Martin (one of the world's largest government contractors) is the leading developer?
It obviously "works", as we have a sun.
Fusion is the only safe way to utilize nuclear power.
We have known this for decades.
The only reason we havent developed it yet is politics and profit.
You think its a coincidence Lockheed Martin (one of the world's largest government contractors) is the leading developer?
No guarantee it's totally safe either, although a failure will probably not affect a large area, but I'd still hate to be standing next to it. Fusion research has been ongoing for 40 years. Both US and European projects have probably soaked up $100 Billion dollar by now (not looking it up, it's probably more) and has yet to achieve a net out. Neither has Lockheed which also has no timetable on the development or release. I will respectfully disagree with your suggestion fusion is somehow being withheld for political reasons. And it's certainly not being withheld for profit as anyone who could dump a working device on the market tomorrow will make a ton of money. It's the science holding it back.
The closest we have to fusion right now with net power out is solar and wind, all derived from the sun's energy generation.
It obviously "works", as we have a sun.
That's cute. There are a "few" processes that occur in nature that we haven't figured out how to mimic yet. We might want to do it on a somewhat smaller scale as well.
Is there anything that you don't see as a conspiracy?
Haven't looked into it, but it sounds like it would break the law of conservation of energy and is most likely a hoax.
My Facebook has been flooded with a recent vape explosion that happened and knocked out the dude's teeth. Of course cigarette users and vape rejecters are jumping on that opportunity to smack vaping and talk about how dangerous it is, when I'm pretty sure that he was using a bad battery in a mechanical mod with no understanding of the law of ohms or any sort of safety protocols.
i love the concept of cold fusion... but i am happy with the hydroelectric i grew up with... yes i live in ontario now, i moved here almost 12 years ago... i'm originally from BC... moving to a province that was using coal(ended) and nuclear was a big shock. thing is, there seems to be a serious lack of accountability and even attempts at self-education in vaping... those power industries for good or bad at least have some regs...
No guarantee it's totally safe either, although a failure will probably not affect a large area, but I'd still hate to be standing next to it. Fusion research has been ongoing for 40 years. Both US and European projects have probably soaked up $100 Billion dollar by now (not looking it up, it's probably more) and has yet to achieve a net out. Neither has Lockheed which also has no timetable on the development or release. I will respectfully disagree with your suggestion fusion is somehow being withheld for political reasons. And it's certainly not being withheld for profit as anyone who could dump a working device on the market tomorrow will make a ton of money. It's the science holding it back.
The closest we have to fusion right now with net power out is solar and wind, all derived from the sun's energy generation.
40 years ago fusion research was publicly ridiculed as fringe science and wishful thinking, to promote "safe fission" powerplants that have sucked nations dry.
Behind the scenes the story changes.
What conspiracy?
Its all public knowledge.
If you actually take the time to look farther than a 20 second google search.
FYI: nuclear fission is also a natural process so Im not sure what you are on about, but we agree, there are natural processes we dont understand how to safely control.
Which was kinda my point.
No such thing as "free energy".
As stated above, most likely a hoax or misinterpreted data.
We talk and talk about battery safety
We talk and talk about not carrying batteries loose or not using a battery with a damaged wrapper
We talk and talk about knowing what you are doing
We talk and talk about not building to more than your battery will tolerate
We talk and talk about not texting while driving...nothing has stopped that either.
People don't listen. They think it doesn't apply to them.
We talk and talk about not carrying batteries loose or not using a battery with a damaged wrapper
We talk and talk about knowing what you are doing
We talk and talk about not building to more than your battery will tolerate
We talk and talk about not texting while driving...nothing has stopped that either.
People don't listen. They think it doesn't apply to them.
Fixed that for ya. You only hear about those that don't listen. Those that do listen don't end up on the evening news.
Can't tell you how many times I have seen some numbskull say he is building so low and receives multiple warnings how unsafe it and they say not to worry they know what they are doing. There is an old saying about the masses and places being airports.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
