Nuclear Research

[Guol]

i am perfectly fine with nuclear research, as long as it is not exploited by countries that have the technology. eg. USA - Hiroshima.

as others in this topic have said, nuclear fusion is something that if researched thoroughly could prove very useful in the future. such types of research are good in my opinion, and if people are able to use the research in a productive way then im all for it ;)

[dreamz Veteran]

I am in full support of nuclear research.  It can lead to bigger and better things.  Responsible govenments can be expected to use the technology wisely. Private enterprise in those nations should be regulated.  Irresponsible governments would likely pursue the technology regardless of what we decide anyway.

586352971[/snapback]

lol that's what i just said. :p great minds... ;)

[Fred Derf Veteran]

lol that's what i just said. :p  great minds... ;)

586356321[/snapback]

Oh yea, so you did. Well, nobody understands what you write anyway. :D

"The arbitrary region that some would recognize as the Islamic Republic of Iran is unlikely to take a nihilistic stance due to their belief in a theocratic approach to governance..." [/dreamz mode]

[vincent]

space exploration can benefit greatly from nuclear power :yes:

[Azusa]

i would like to see nuclear tech develop to the point we could powr a contry with one station but not in bush's life i would like to see people like him killed off before we have that power who would want a maniac like him to have rail cannons at his dissposeal how ever it would be good to see us finaly mast fusion to generate power

[Boffa Jones Veteran]

Nukonomics 101

Efficiency much cheaper than nuke power as way to curb carbon emissions

The market economics of nuclear power don't add up to a climate-change solution, particularly when compared to simple, proven energy-efficiency techniques, argues Mark Hertsgaard in the San Francisco Chronicle. But you wouldn't know it from listening to the current public debate. Collapse author Jared Diamond is the latest prominent eco-advocate to join the fission pushers in promoting nuclear power for its alleged ability to curb carbon emissions. But when you factor in the $2 billion-plus cost of building each plant, nuclear electricity turns out to be a lot more expensive than juice from fossil fuels, wind, or simple conservation. Studies from the Rocky Mountain Institute suggest that investing those billions in easy, cheap, available conservation methods would be seven times more economically effective at curbing carbon emissions. Sadly for taxpayers and the warming planet (but happily for the nuclear industry), the energy bill that President Bush is signing today devotes billions in subsidies, tax breaks, and loan guarantees to the nuclear-power industry.

From a site i visit Grist.org