Wind Energy possibly dangerous......

[Jade_Steel_Hawk]

how about fusion reactors? Fusion is the energy source of the sun. Fusion is a billion times more effective than wind power (which barely produce more energy than they consume)

Here you can read all about this, clean and efficient energy source here http://www.iter.org/a/index_nav_1.htm

P.S It's no longer correct to call it "global warming" as it's not warming but cooling. They now call it "climate change"

Nuclear waste is still a problem.
No energy source is the cure-all.
Wind energy is probably the cleanest source.
The government also takes forever to approve construction of nuclear plants, which is why there haven't been any new ones in the US for about 10-20 years.

[josh :)]

P.S It's no longer correct to call it "global warming" as it's not warming but cooling. They now call it "climate change"

Don't tell me the earth is cooling when my home city (Melbourne) experienced the hottest day ever on record about a week ago. Records began in the 1800s...Not only has that extreme occurred, but the average is up as well.

It's correct to call this issue 'Global Warming' as that is the f**king issue. 'Climate Change' doesn't even take a position on the direction or quality of change. 'Climate change' doesn't even acknowledge this as a global issue. "'Climate Change' is what happens when you go on a holiday, or switch on an air conditioner at home, or the 'climate control' in your sports utility vehicle". Climate Change is not sinister, it is controllable, an easier challenge. 'Global Warming' on the other hand has more menacing connotations, it actually acknowledges which way the climate is changing and that it's changing on a 'global' scale.

Of course the Government says it's no longer correct to call it global warming, but that is all part of their persuasion by stealth tricks.

[Aoi Sakuraba]

how about fusion reactors? Fusion is the energy source of the sun. Fusion is a billion times more effective than wind power (which barely produce more energy than they consume)

Here you can read all about this, clean and efficient energy source here http://www.iter.org/a/index_nav_1.htm

P.S It's no longer correct to call it "global warming" as it's not warming but cooling. They now call it "climate change"

Nuclear waste is still a problem.
No energy source is the cure-all.
Wind energy is probably the cleanest source.
The government also takes forever to approve construction of nuclear plants, which is why there haven't been any new ones in the US for about 10-20 years.

Did you even look at the website I posted? ITER is not a nuclear power plant, it is a fusion power plant, nuclear power plants use a dangerous chain reaction to produce energy ITER uses a completely different method to produce energy and DOES NOT use a chain reaction.

Here i'll post it for you:
First of all, fusion is an almost limitless fuel supply. The basic fuels are distributed widely around the globe. Deuterium is abundant and can be extracted easily from sea water. Lithium, from which tritium can be produced, is a readily available light metal in the Earth´s crust.

Fusion produces no greenhouse gas emissions. Fusion power plants will not generate gases such as carbon dioxide that cause global warming and climate change, nor other gases that have damaging effects on the environment.

Fusion is suitable for the large-scale electricity production required for the increasing energy needs of large cities. A single fusion power station could generate electricity for two million households.

Waste from fusion will not be a long-term burden on future generations. Only metal parts close to the fusion plasma will become radioactive. Any radioactive waste generated will be small in volume and the radioactivity will decay over several decades with the possibility of reuse after about 100 years.

No transport of radioactive materials is required in the day-to-day operation of a fusion power station, as the intermediate fuel tritium is produced and consumed within the power plant.

The fusion reaction is inherently safe. Only about two grams of fuel is present in the plasma vessel, enough for a few seconds of "burn". As fusion is not a chain reaction, the reaction can never run out of hand.

[josh :)]

anyway that radioactive waste will build up to a ridiculous amount over time...

(Edited by Athos for offensive language)

[Athos]

That radioactive waste depends on the rate of decay for each metal.

[Symos]

Hate to tell you this but fusion is nuclear. It involves the process of fusing parts of an atom's nucleus.

[Athos]

That isn't really what "nuclear" is though. Nuclear involves the explosion of an atom's nucleus, not fusing. (And Aoi says it's fision not fusion.)

[josh :)]

That radioactive waste depends on the rate of decay for each metal.

watever captain smug dp

[Symos]

Well, I've read fusion is indeed a nucler process.

[Athos]

I'll have to ask my dad about it. Because from what I remember, fusion isn't exactly nuclear.

[josh :)]

the problem with nuclear is the waste. and if fusion produces the same waste its probably just as bad

[Athos]

Like I said before, no matter what we do, there seems to always be something bad about it. But if since we appear to need energy, I'd rather have a small amount of it produced than a large amount. It'd be a bonus if it had a short decay life.

[Jade_Steel_Hawk]

Hate to tell you this but fusion is nuclear. It involves the process of fusing parts of an atom's nucleus.

Exactly. Some people should use their brains before they flip out. =/
Read the first sentence.

[SASSZAIN]

Gogeta is nucular?

[ANGEL OF HELL]

I can never tell if the Earth is warming considering it's always about 115-120 degrees on any given day in the summer here. Winter is about 60-70 degrees, and it always has been.