As of now, fossil fuels provide 46% of the world's energy. Only 16% of the world's energy comes from nuclear power plants.
Nuclear power plants, if run properly, create energy up to 10% cheaper than fossil fuels with 0 pollutants. The radioactive waste can now be recycled and recycled to remove most radio active energy, and the final waste product can be safely stored in the Canadian Shield (i think it's called?) under ground without water flowing, and nobody living around. Another option would be rocketing the waste products to the sun, via rocket ship.
Who will control the plants though?
Is the world mature and responsible enough to handle more nuclear power?
There are some risks, but considering that over 30K people have died mining coal, and nobody has ever died in america from Nuclear power plants, which is really more dangerous?
Chernobyl was the Russians being cheap and lazy.
Full Version: The Future Of Nuclear Energy
only real answer is reduction in world population
If the waste is so dangerous that you would want to store it in the bedrock of the Canadian Shield free from running water than you can not say it is not pollution no matter how far it is refined.
Shooting it into the Sun, first you have to get it off the planet, rockets explode and you would have produced, at the least, a very large dirty bomb and exploded it in the atmosphere. Worst case scenario CRITICAL MASS.
No, absolutely not, not yesterday today or any day in the foreseeable future. There is not much difference between power plant fuel and weapons grade, once you have created this stuff you can't uncreate it using it. The USSR was trusted with its fissionable material, yes we were worried about them throwing some our way but not about the security of it. Well less than 2 decades later the USSR collapsed into several smaller Nuclear States and huge amounts of weapons grade material has gone missing.
This stuff has a very long shelf life, will the USA still be here thousands of years from now, our bombs will be.
My opinion is we should drill a side shaft into a volcano's magma pot and after serious efforts to dilute this crap we inject it into the magma, all of it. This is Pandora's Box and we should put the lid back on before even hope gets out.
Hydrogen is the most common, basic element in the Universe, I'm no fan of a hydrogen economy but it would be far better than a nuclear solution.
Solar, hydro, hydro thermal, cellulosic biomass, algal biomass, wind, Tidal... The list of cheap/free energy that pollutes very little or not at all is extensive and provides us with to many alternatives to suffer the consequences of nuclear power. The reason why this is being shoved on us is because control of the power stays in the hands of a few the same as it is today, POWER=MONEY=POWER.
The answer to this and over population is to reinvest in our space program which hasn't seen any real progress in decades, mostly do to lack of funding.
Shooting it into the Sun, first you have to get it off the planet, rockets explode and you would have produced, at the least, a very large dirty bomb and exploded it in the atmosphere. Worst case scenario CRITICAL MASS.
QUOTE
Is the world mature and responsible enough to handle more nuclear power?
No, absolutely not, not yesterday today or any day in the foreseeable future. There is not much difference between power plant fuel and weapons grade, once you have created this stuff you can't uncreate it using it. The USSR was trusted with its fissionable material, yes we were worried about them throwing some our way but not about the security of it. Well less than 2 decades later the USSR collapsed into several smaller Nuclear States and huge amounts of weapons grade material has gone missing.
This stuff has a very long shelf life, will the USA still be here thousands of years from now, our bombs will be.
My opinion is we should drill a side shaft into a volcano's magma pot and after serious efforts to dilute this crap we inject it into the magma, all of it. This is Pandora's Box and we should put the lid back on before even hope gets out.
Hydrogen is the most common, basic element in the Universe, I'm no fan of a hydrogen economy but it would be far better than a nuclear solution.
Solar, hydro, hydro thermal, cellulosic biomass, algal biomass, wind, Tidal... The list of cheap/free energy that pollutes very little or not at all is extensive and provides us with to many alternatives to suffer the consequences of nuclear power. The reason why this is being shoved on us is because control of the power stays in the hands of a few the same as it is today, POWER=MONEY=POWER.
QUOTE
haskins69
only real answer is reduction in world population
only real answer is reduction in world population
The answer to this and over population is to reinvest in our space program which hasn't seen any real progress in decades, mostly do to lack of funding.
QUOTE (PH8AL @ Jul 15 2010, 01:30 AM) 
If the waste is so dangerous that you would want to store it in the bedrock of the Canadian Shield free from running water than you can not say it is not pollution no matter how far it is refined.
Shooting it into the Sun, first you have to get it off the planet, rockets explode and you would have produced, at the least, a very large dirty bomb and exploded it in the atmosphere. Worst case scenario CRITICAL MASS.
No, absolutely not, not yesterday today or any day in the foreseeable future. There is not much difference between power plant fuel and weapons grade, once you have created this stuff you can't uncreate it using it. The USSR was trusted with its fissionable material, yes we were worried about them throwing some our way but not about the security of it. Well less than 2 decades later the USSR collapsed into several smaller Nuclear States and huge amounts of weapons grade material has gone missing.
This stuff has a very long shelf life, will the USA still be here thousands of years from now, our bombs will be.
My opinion is we should drill a side shaft into a volcano's magma pot and after serious efforts to dilute this crap we inject it into the magma, all of it. This is Pandora's Box and we should put the lid back on before even hope gets out.
Hydrogen is the most common, basic element in the Universe, I'm no fan of a hydrogen economy but it would be far better than a nuclear solution.
Solar, hydro, hydro thermal, cellulosic biomass, algal biomass, wind, Tidal... The list of cheap/free energy that pollutes very little or not at all is extensive and provides us with to many alternatives to suffer the consequences of nuclear power. The reason why this is being shoved on us is because control of the power stays in the hands of a few the same as it is today, POWER=MONEY=POWER.
The answer to this and over population is to reinvest in our space program which hasn't seen any real progress in decades, mostly do to lack of funding.
Shooting it into the Sun, first you have to get it off the planet, rockets explode and you would have produced, at the least, a very large dirty bomb and exploded it in the atmosphere. Worst case scenario CRITICAL MASS.
No, absolutely not, not yesterday today or any day in the foreseeable future. There is not much difference between power plant fuel and weapons grade, once you have created this stuff you can't uncreate it using it. The USSR was trusted with its fissionable material, yes we were worried about them throwing some our way but not about the security of it. Well less than 2 decades later the USSR collapsed into several smaller Nuclear States and huge amounts of weapons grade material has gone missing.
This stuff has a very long shelf life, will the USA still be here thousands of years from now, our bombs will be.
My opinion is we should drill a side shaft into a volcano's magma pot and after serious efforts to dilute this crap we inject it into the magma, all of it. This is Pandora's Box and we should put the lid back on before even hope gets out.
Hydrogen is the most common, basic element in the Universe, I'm no fan of a hydrogen economy but it would be far better than a nuclear solution.
Solar, hydro, hydro thermal, cellulosic biomass, algal biomass, wind, Tidal... The list of cheap/free energy that pollutes very little or not at all is extensive and provides us with to many alternatives to suffer the consequences of nuclear power. The reason why this is being shoved on us is because control of the power stays in the hands of a few the same as it is today, POWER=MONEY=POWER.
The answer to this and over population is to reinvest in our space program which hasn't seen any real progress in decades, mostly do to lack of funding.
I think your approach to nuclear energy generation displays a lack of confidence in the ability of man to innovate.
Renewables are unlikely to fulfil the energy needs of an ever more power hungry global population, and pursuing things like windmills is an expensive and ultimately fruitless exercise.
Oil and gas supplies are finite, and are becoming ever more difficult to extract in a commecially viable way.
Regressing to the energy needs of the middle ages is not, as the Greens would like to have you think, the way to go.
So what are we left with? Nuclear.
This from Professor Colin McInnes, professor of engineering science at the University of Strathclyde.
QUOTE
For nuclear power, the current generation of once-through light water reactors were never seen as an end point for nuclear energy, but only a beginning. We are currently using the inefficient Newcomen engines of the nuclear age, but have yet to deploy the greatly improved equivalent of the Watt engine. The Watt engines of the nuclear age will likely be generation-IV fast reactors, possibly accelerator-driven machines or even fusion-fission hybrids, each of which can improve fuel burn from less than one per cent to greater than 99 per cent, while incinerating the spent fuel (wrongly classified as waste) from our current fleet of reactors. This will create yet more energy and extend the useful life of uranium deposits into the far future. Even more important for the future will be the use of thorium as a fertile and abundant fuel which will enable nuclear energy to be generated in copious quantities for quite literally thousands of years to come.
Let’s be clear: there is no shortage of high-grade energy, only a shortage of ambition in some quarters and a retreat from the idea of human progress through technical innovation. That doesn’t mean there are no technical problems to overcome – for example, there are serious engineering challenges in building really big nuclear plants – but there are some startling ideas now being discussed about how these problems could be solved.
Whatever technologies are ultimately devised and deployed, our goal must be to generate yet more clean, low-cost energy. We will need this energy to power the developing world, deliver rapid transportation, process and store information, light our growing cities, explore new intellectual horizons in science and recycle strategic materials in ways undreamt of by today’s greens.
Let’s be clear: there is no shortage of high-grade energy, only a shortage of ambition in some quarters and a retreat from the idea of human progress through technical innovation. That doesn’t mean there are no technical problems to overcome – for example, there are serious engineering challenges in building really big nuclear plants – but there are some startling ideas now being discussed about how these problems could be solved.
Whatever technologies are ultimately devised and deployed, our goal must be to generate yet more clean, low-cost energy. We will need this energy to power the developing world, deliver rapid transportation, process and store information, light our growing cities, explore new intellectual horizons in science and recycle strategic materials in ways undreamt of by today’s greens.
Energy needs to be locally, not GLOBALY.... simply do to the fact that we create excess, wich creates wasted resources. Simply explain to me why we have always lived near rivers? we used them to power our factories, we have been using electricity for the longest time, but the introduction of Nuclear Power has created more Bad than good, with all the Nuclear Run off and such. I live not to far away from a nuclear power plant, and I live close enough that if exploded I'd die instantly. You have so much burdens when you use Nuclear power, the upkeep alone costs more than running a water driven Generator, or a Windmill.
Because we need more energy is not an excuse to pollute more. We should spend the billions that a single nuclear reactor costs to innovate ways to decrease the need or we need to give up some of our fancy toys and deal with it.
Not to mention we are just dipping a toe into the pond of the potential of non polluting renewables.
Not to mention we are just dipping a toe into the pond of the potential of non polluting renewables.
QUOTE (Nomsaiyan @ Jul 16 2010, 02:04 AM)
Energy needs to be locally, not GLOBALY.... simply do to the fact that we create excess, wich creates wasted resources. Simply explain to me why we have always lived near rivers? we used them to power our factories, we have been using electricity for the longest time, but the introduction of Nuclear Power has created more Bad than good, with all the Nuclear Run off and such. I live not to far away from a nuclear power plant, and I live close enough that if exploded I'd die instantly. You have so much burdens when you use Nuclear power, the upkeep alone costs more than running a water driven Generator, or a Windmill.
I also live about 25 miles from a nuclear plant. Due to a report I did in school many years ago I have no worries however. A little research into nuclear power plant construction and operation would be well worth your time, particularly since you live in the shadows of one. It is impossible for a nuclear power plant to explode. Maybe a turbine could come apart or a generator, but neither one of these would pose a threat to the reactor. In a nuclear power plant the nuclear material is merely used to heat water into steam which then drives a steam turbine connected to a generator. The only real threat is what is called a "runaway reactor" which is what happened at Chernobyl, and 3 mile island. In a modern nuclear plant however that is also almost an impossibility. I say almost impossible because the odds of it happening are so astronomically against it you could safely say impossible, but that would draw criticism. In a runaway reactor there isn't enough coolant available to keep the fuel rods cool enough to hold them in their containers and they litterly melt every thing around them and then begin to melt into the earth, thus the term meltdown. Today's reactors, at least in the US and Canada, hold the fuel rods in a giant reservoir. Even without any coolant circulation it would take days to burn off the reservoirs water. In that amount of time the reservoirs could be manually refilled if need be. Now lets say for some reason you couldn't refill the reservoirs manually and the you were unable to get water from the local lake that normally maintains the reservoir, a worst case scenerio, the fuel rods overheat and you get a runaway reactor. You know those tell tale giant cooling towers, guess what they are filled with water. The water can be released into the reservoir, enough water in fact to cool the reactor for weeks. Now what happens if for some reason the automated water release malfunctions, and the secondary manual system is for some reason unavailable also? Well then we end up with a true runaway reactor and it begins to melt everything around it including the cooling towers which then due to the unstopable force of gravity dump their water into the reservoir, again providing enough cooling for weeks. I hope you are following just how safe nuclear energy actually is. By default if every other safety measure fails the meltdown itself will trigger the final safety thus avoiding a complete meltdown.
QUOTE (PH8AL @ Jul 18 2010, 03:33 PM)
Because we need more energy is not an excuse to pollute more. We should spend the billions that a single nuclear reactor costs to innovate ways to decrease the need or we need to give up some of our fancy toys and deal with it.
Not to mention we are just dipping a toe into the pond of the potential of non polluting renewables.
Not to mention we are just dipping a toe into the pond of the potential of non polluting renewables.
I agree that we are just getting started into viable non polluting new energy sources. I wouldn't agree that we shouldn't use the technology available to us now however. Nuclear energy is clean, safe and could be abundant. As to the disposal of the nuclear fuels there are already a lot of really good ideas on recycling them. The days of having to bury them under a mountain could very quickly become a thing of the past if public opinion could just be persuaded toward the use and recycling of nuclear materials. I will say this one idea I do think it is stupid is to remove the material from the planet. Not only is this the most risky (although they claim the containers could withstand a free fall impact through the atmosphere into the earth), it would again be a waste of a recyclable material. We need to get away from this thinking of use it and throw it away. How about use it, and use it again, and again. Maybe we wouldn't be in this pickle of killing our planet. Anyway by any reports we need to stop adding pollutants into the atmosphere NOW, we no longer have the luxury of waiting for some new perfect technology. If we don't stop now it won't matter, the damage will be irreversible, and would continue to escalate even if we didn't put another drop of pollution into the planet. Some scientist think we may have already passed the point of no return and the best we can hope for now is to slow down the death of our planet.
No matter what solutions we go with, our demand for more and more power are increasing exponentially as a world wide people. Technologically emerging countries, our own demands, and new technology will all require more, and fossil fuels just can not meet the demand.
^^^
exactly why I devote so much of my mental work to ways to re use and not pollute in the first place. I put them out there so even if I never pursue them further some one else might. Like the self-charging electric bike.
I have always been against nuclear energy, yes we may have it down to where they waste is far less toxic and reusable but not much has changed about the conditions of the strip mines in third world places like the Congo where the material comes from. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3566701.stm.
Then there is the problem that the more we pursue nuclear energy the less a leg we have to stand on denying 2nd and 3rd world Nations from pursuing it which will also give them the Bomb. A Uranium A-bomb is a simple matter of smashing 2 chunks together, think cannon with both ends closed. Not even close to rocket science, the hard part is refining the material and they have to do that to make electricity. Iran is a perfect case in point. The choice between telling people they need to cut back and nuclear proliferation is a no brainer in my book.
We just don't have the right to destroy our home to power a bunch of gadgets we don't need.
Nomsaiyan has a very good point as well, large centralized plants have to produce far more power because of what is lost to transmission. Smaller grids making use of what the local area has to offer for resources would save $$millions a year right here in the US and would be far more stable, rolling black outs across several states would be a thing of the past. If memory serves me 40% of what is produced never reaches an end user, it takes a lot to push current through thousands of miles of wire.
exactly why I devote so much of my mental work to ways to re use and not pollute in the first place. I put them out there so even if I never pursue them further some one else might. Like the self-charging electric bike.
I have always been against nuclear energy, yes we may have it down to where they waste is far less toxic and reusable but not much has changed about the conditions of the strip mines in third world places like the Congo where the material comes from. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3566701.stm.
Then there is the problem that the more we pursue nuclear energy the less a leg we have to stand on denying 2nd and 3rd world Nations from pursuing it which will also give them the Bomb. A Uranium A-bomb is a simple matter of smashing 2 chunks together, think cannon with both ends closed. Not even close to rocket science, the hard part is refining the material and they have to do that to make electricity. Iran is a perfect case in point. The choice between telling people they need to cut back and nuclear proliferation is a no brainer in my book.
We just don't have the right to destroy our home to power a bunch of gadgets we don't need.
Nomsaiyan has a very good point as well, large centralized plants have to produce far more power because of what is lost to transmission. Smaller grids making use of what the local area has to offer for resources would save $$millions a year right here in the US and would be far more stable, rolling black outs across several states would be a thing of the past. If memory serves me 40% of what is produced never reaches an end user, it takes a lot to push current through thousands of miles of wire.
QUOTE
Then there is the problem that the more we pursue nuclear energy the less a leg we have to stand on denying 2nd and 3rd world Nations from pursuing it which will also give them the Bomb. A Uranium A-bomb is a simple matter of smashing 2 chunks together, think cannon with both ends closed. Not even close to rocket science, the hard part is refining the material and they have to do that to make electricity. Iran is a perfect case in point. The choice between telling people they need to cut back and nuclear proliferation is a no brainer in my book.
Sorry but this statement is incorrect. You can not simply smash to nuclear materials together and start a reaction. It takes tremendous pressure to start a reaction.A charge is set of inside the material which greatly increases the force/pressure applied to the nuclear material thus starting a reaction. Think of the old fire cracker in the hand adage. If you hold your hand out and set of a firecracker in the palm on your hand it will probably sting and maybe a small superficial burn, but if you light the same firecracker off inside your closed fist, you'll be looking for hooks to fit your stub.
As to nuclear fuels - they are a long way from weapons grade nuclear material. Basically any nuclear material can be used to heat water, but weapons grade needs to be a "Hot" as possible so that the molecules are super excited, only then are we able to produce enough pressure to start a reaction. Nuclear fuel grade material is far less excited and therefore would require a great deal more pressure to start a reaction, in fact we can't produce that kind of pressure. This is why a nuclear bomb can crash into the ground in an aircraft accident and not be at risk of exploding, we simply can't crash it into the ground hard enough to start a reaction, the only way to get enough pressure even with super excited material is to basically set off a many sticks of dynamite at once inside of it. Linky on nuclear fission/fusion bombs
As far as Iran goes - The whole point to the issue is that they don't require material refined that far to have nuclear fuel, the only reason to refine it that far is for a weapon. There is a huge difference between what is required as fuel and what is required as a weapon, and there is no mistaking the two. Not to mention the tremendous effort and and energy it takes to go from fuel to weapon. It's like saying "I was trying to build a single prop Cessna, and accidentally ended up with a space shuttle." Not gonna happen, you meant to build a shuttle all along.
Regarding strip mining conditions in the Congo, two of the largest sources for uranium are Canada and Australia. Linky
PH8AL - Please don't take this response as anything personal towards you, it is not. I just know these facts to be true, and felt it needed to said, peoples fears of nuclear energy are feed by misinformation, even if it is with the best of intentions. We cannot allow public misunderstanding of our energy alternatives keep us in the dark ages of energy production any more. You seem an enlightened individual, so please test what I have said, challenge it, that is how we learn.
I don't take it personal I just personally don't believe it is a thing we should pursue. This is a valid debate for people to be having.
Using Plutonium is quite complicated to build a bomb, its not a simple matter of critical mass, you have to use high explosives to ignite it and focus that energy perfectly into the middle and very few countries have the technology to produce a bomb with any kind of yield but the kicker here is weapons grade Plutonium is the byproduct of a nuclear reactor.
Uranium is a much different process and if you or I could lay our hands on 60lbs of it we could build a bomb in a high school metal shop. you take 2 halves of less than critical mass place them in opposite ends of a metal tube and fire them at each other like bullets, they reach critical mass by simply being put together. The only good thing is enriching Uranium is not simple.
Proof of how simple a Uranium bomb is can be found in the Manhattan Project, all the bombs they tested were plutonium, the Uranium bomb is so simple the 1st one ever detonated was the one dropped on Hiroshima.
The same enrichment process that produces fuel is exactly the same process to further enrich the material to weapons grade. Crudely put its like the difference between Smirnoff and Absolute Vodkas just a matter of how many times you run it through the process. There is no way for any one with out access to where the equipment is to know whether they are making fuel or a weapon. Many small Nations still have the belief that if they have 1 nuke it earns the clout and leverage, instant respect. How would you go about taking it away from them, it doesn't matter how large your army is they have a nuke.
Aside from that there are all kinds of other seriously bad situations that could happen short of detonation, dirty bombs, while largely ineffective would probably cause more deaths from the panic and chaos that would follow just from the word radiation.
Then you have the scenario that Im amazed the 9/11 hijackers passed up. They claim that our reactors can withstand a hit from a jumbo jet, the Titanic was unsinkable and the Twin Towers were designed to take a hit from a 747. The idea is that a plane designed to be light will break like an egg and dissipate its energy around the outside of the round reactor. But think about it logically. A 757 weighs 125 tons full load carrying 11,400 gallons of jet fuel and flies at about 600mph or roughly just a bit slower than your average small caliber pistol bullet. I think they're bluffing. Now look at the size of the containment zone around Chernobyl.
It comes down to Humans as a species are murderous, we take any advantage to kill our enemy. I have to live knowing my Nation is the only one to have fired off one of these monsters killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and then did it again 2 days later just to drive the point home. This after we had been fire bombing civilians for months.
Look into the situation with all the weapons grade material that has already gone missing from the former Soviet Union. Sure we are a strong power but for how long, these bombs will out live us a hundred fold. Then look at all these piss ant countries like Pakistan who have the Bomb, its not even stable today.
Its not a matter of if but when a nuke is used or a dirty bomb with the left overs is detonated and with our popularity in the world it will prolly be us that gets it. Sorry I find no comfort in assured mutual destruction, there are nuts in the world in power that would be cool with that as long as they took a bunch of us with them.
The more of this stuff we make the more will always be here and the more potential for harm.
The only thing I feel is the responsible thing to do is grind this crap up with lead drop it down oil wells and follow it with several hundred tons of concrete. Man just can't be trusted with this kind of power.
I can assure you this is a belief I will go to my grave with. Cheap electricity is not worth it, I would rather we went back to the Dark Ages than this.
Using Plutonium is quite complicated to build a bomb, its not a simple matter of critical mass, you have to use high explosives to ignite it and focus that energy perfectly into the middle and very few countries have the technology to produce a bomb with any kind of yield but the kicker here is weapons grade Plutonium is the byproduct of a nuclear reactor.
Uranium is a much different process and if you or I could lay our hands on 60lbs of it we could build a bomb in a high school metal shop. you take 2 halves of less than critical mass place them in opposite ends of a metal tube and fire them at each other like bullets, they reach critical mass by simply being put together. The only good thing is enriching Uranium is not simple.
Proof of how simple a Uranium bomb is can be found in the Manhattan Project, all the bombs they tested were plutonium, the Uranium bomb is so simple the 1st one ever detonated was the one dropped on Hiroshima.
The same enrichment process that produces fuel is exactly the same process to further enrich the material to weapons grade. Crudely put its like the difference between Smirnoff and Absolute Vodkas just a matter of how many times you run it through the process. There is no way for any one with out access to where the equipment is to know whether they are making fuel or a weapon. Many small Nations still have the belief that if they have 1 nuke it earns the clout and leverage, instant respect. How would you go about taking it away from them, it doesn't matter how large your army is they have a nuke.
Aside from that there are all kinds of other seriously bad situations that could happen short of detonation, dirty bombs, while largely ineffective would probably cause more deaths from the panic and chaos that would follow just from the word radiation.
Then you have the scenario that Im amazed the 9/11 hijackers passed up. They claim that our reactors can withstand a hit from a jumbo jet, the Titanic was unsinkable and the Twin Towers were designed to take a hit from a 747. The idea is that a plane designed to be light will break like an egg and dissipate its energy around the outside of the round reactor. But think about it logically. A 757 weighs 125 tons full load carrying 11,400 gallons of jet fuel and flies at about 600mph or roughly just a bit slower than your average small caliber pistol bullet. I think they're bluffing. Now look at the size of the containment zone around Chernobyl.
It comes down to Humans as a species are murderous, we take any advantage to kill our enemy. I have to live knowing my Nation is the only one to have fired off one of these monsters killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and then did it again 2 days later just to drive the point home. This after we had been fire bombing civilians for months.
Look into the situation with all the weapons grade material that has already gone missing from the former Soviet Union. Sure we are a strong power but for how long, these bombs will out live us a hundred fold. Then look at all these piss ant countries like Pakistan who have the Bomb, its not even stable today.
Its not a matter of if but when a nuke is used or a dirty bomb with the left overs is detonated and with our popularity in the world it will prolly be us that gets it. Sorry I find no comfort in assured mutual destruction, there are nuts in the world in power that would be cool with that as long as they took a bunch of us with them.
The more of this stuff we make the more will always be here and the more potential for harm.
The only thing I feel is the responsible thing to do is grind this crap up with lead drop it down oil wells and follow it with several hundred tons of concrete. Man just can't be trusted with this kind of power.
I can assure you this is a belief I will go to my grave with. Cheap electricity is not worth it, I would rather we went back to the Dark Ages than this.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.