Insane Web Site.

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by yales, Jul 27, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. yales Banned Banned

    Help us stop the nuclear Nazi's!

    Have you seen this place. I thought that Bonsai kittens was bad but these deluded fools want to use nuclear power for rockets!

    What happens when one of their flying bombs goes chernobyl? Some of them are suggesting that nuclear rocket vehicles should have been built decades ago to prevent asteroid impacts. Quite frankly I would rather die quickly in an earth shattering collision than slowly from radiation poisoning. Nuclear power should be completely abolished forever. It is a dinosaur technology. Windmills are much better. Just because nuclear energy is more compact and is the only way of getting large payloads to deep space in a short time is no reason to do it. If a big asteroid was to hit us (and I'm not saying it's likely to happen for thousands of years) then we would probably have years in which to develop some new energy to do the job which is clean and safe.
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2002
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Sorry, windmills are not an effective method of generating power, neither on earth nor in space.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Nuclear power is bloody good stuff, especially in space. The only thing holding back clean power is the common opinion that nuclear power is bad, an opinion which is not supported by any real reasons. Fossil fuel burning has done a lot more harm to this world than nuclear power ever has. And in space, where it barely matters at all, nuclear power is a brilliant idea.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. yales Banned Banned

    Nuclear power is evil.

    Wind turbines will replace nuclear power plants. You only require a few thousand hectares to supply all of a cities energy needs. As long as the wind keeps blowing its free electricity. Nuclear power creates waste which might leak in 10,000 years time killing some poor farmer who was only minding his own business. Then theres aliens. Like nobody lives in space right. Sending nuclear stuff to space could kill countless civilisations.
  8. yales Banned Banned

    You are so wrong.

    They have no supporters. Just a handful of nuclear students and space trekkies. That proves they are wrong. The anti-nuclear lobby is huge. If thousands of people say that nuclear is no good and can never amount to anything then they must be right. Think about it. How can thousands of people be wrong. The majority are on my side and the virtually dead forums at prove it. They are just a bunch of nuclear nazi's who want to kill us all. They should all be rounded up and locked behind bars. They will never become a sizable movement. I expect that they will soon be removed from the internet for inciting evil.
  9. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    The trouble is that wind generated power is neither cost effective nor is it dependable as a full time source of power. You, yourself would not be happy the the lights in your house go off every-so-often because the wind does not blow. You can not just erect wind generator anywhere and expect to get power on a consistant basis.

    Nor would you be happy because you had to pay an extra 80¢ per kilowatt hour because the cost of erecting and maintaining so many wind generating setups because it takes so many to make so little. This is reality. Sorry.

    Aliens? The only ones I know slip over the border to work.
  10. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    A few bits taken from my notes for a first semester project


    NOTE: The ",,h" is a code for a bullet from MS Word, it didn't paste in right.

    „h Inexpensive
    „h Easy to recover (in U.S. and Russia)
    „h Requires expensive air pollution controls (e.g. mercury, sulphur dioxide)
    „h Significant contributor to acid rain and global warming
    „h Requires extensive transportation system
    „h Fuel is inexpensive
    „h Energy generation is the most concentrated source
    „h Waste is more compact than any source
    „h Extensive scientific basis for the cycle
    „h Easy to transport as new fuel
    „h No greenhouse or acid rain effects
    „h Requires larger capital cost because of emergency, containment, radioactive waste and storage systems
    „h Requires resolution of the long-term high level waste storage issue in most countries
    „h Potential nuclear proliferation issue
    „h Very inexpensive once dam is built
    „h Government has invested heavily in building dams, particularly in the Western U.S.
    „h Very limited source since depends on water elevation
    „h Many dams available are currently exist (not much of a future source[depends on country])
    „h Dam collapse usually leads to loss of life
    „h Dams have affected fish (e.g. salmon runs)
    „h Environmental damage for areas flooded (backed up) and downstream
    Gas / Oil
    „h Good distribution system for current use levels
    „h Easy to obtain
    „h Better as space heating energy source
    „h Very limited availability as shown by shortages during winters several years ago
    „h Could be major contributor to global warming
    „h Expensive for energy generation
    „h Large price swings with supply and demand
    „h Wind is free if available
    „h Good source for periodic water pumping demands of farms as used earlier in 1900's
    „h Need 3x the amount of installed generation to meet demand
    „h Limited to few areas of U.S.
    „h Equipment is expensive to maintain
    „h Need expensive energy storage (e.g. batteries)
    „h Highly climate dependent - wind can damage during windstorms or not turn during still summer days.
    „h Can affect endangered birds.
    „h Sunlight is free when available
    „h Limited to southern areas of U.S. and other sunny areas throughout the world (demanded the most when least available, e.g solar heating)
    „h Does require special materials for mirrors/panels that can affect environment
    „h Current technology requires large amounts of land for small amounts of energy generation
    „h Industry in its infancy
    „h Could create jobs because smaller plants would be used
    „h Inefficient if small plants are used
    „h Could be significant contributor to global warming because fuel has low heat content
    Refuse Based Fuel
    „h Fuel can have low cost
    „h Could create jobs because smaller plants would be used
    „h Low sulfur dioxide emissions
    „h Inefficient if small plants are used
    „h Could be significant contributor to global warming because fuel has low heat content
    „h Flyash can contain metals as cadmium and lead
    „h Contain dioxins and furans in air and ash releases
    „h Hydrogen and tritium could be used as fuel source
    „h Higher energy output per unit mass than fission
    „h Low radiation levels associated with process than fission-based reactors
    „h Breakeven point has not been reached after ~40 years of expensive research and commercially available plants not expected for at least 35 years.




    In 2000 Danish wind turbine companies supplied 2,500 megawatts of new generating capacity, equivalent to a medium-sized nuclear power station. Danish manufacturers had a 50 per cent share of the world market for wind turbines in 2000.

    Generating electricity with wind-powered turbines is quite popular these days, and already there are huge ¡§farms¡¨ of these generators springing up all over Europe. China even plans to power their Olympics with electricity generated by wind. Thus far, wind power farms supply small, isolated communities or contribute a small amount to larger power grids.

    „h Wind turbines use only the energy from the moving air to generate electricity. A modern 1,000 kW wind turbine in an average location will annually displace 2,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide from other electricity sources, i.e. usually coal fired power stations.

    „h The energy produced by a wind turbine throughout its 20 year lifetime (in an average location) is eighty times larger than the amount of energy used to build, maintain, operate, dismantle, and scrapping it again. In other words, on average it takes only two to three months for a wind turbine to recover all the energy required to build and operate it.

  11. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    I would say that it is a bunch of Green nazi's that will lead to our down fall. Witness California's woes with the power industry this past year or so ago. The "not in my back yard" mentality and the I don't want to pay for it lead straight to their problems.
  12. yales Banned Banned


    Nuclear power must be suppressed. Some day terrorists will get hold of a nuclear bomb. This gets easier with nuclear proliferation. More reactors means more mox and actinides to steal. We have to put off the day of Armageddon as long as possible.
  13. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Welcome to Sciforums Yales.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Man, do you have a good opening thread. Keep 'em coming!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Will you be content to sit by the fire out side in the winter because you can not obtain or afford to pay for the power necessary to fire up your heaters? That is in the long run where you are headed. As more people fill up living space more power is required. There is a limit to how much power can be generated through solar or wind power and they have very limited places where they can be installed at.

    You have yet to show where it could be more effective. All so far I hear, are the Greenpeace rants. Throw in a few figures to support your statements. I would but Adam has already beat me to it.

    Blind statements, full of moral indignation, will not solve problems, they only make things worse as they get in the way of real solutions. Instead of making things worse, show where you can do this with wind power, show how much it will cost, and then show the benefits. The benefits do not come first...

    I would take a moment to welcome you to sciforums, Yales. It is rare someone gets me fired up without me at least welcoming them first. My apology for that.
  15. thed IT Gopher Registered Senior Member


    Now you've done it. You know who will descend on this tranquil haven in cyberspace and start trouble. Batten down the hatches, 'ware borders.

    Yales, don't you think that this private war of yours with Wayne is getting a little out of hand when you start dragging other communities into it. The nuclearspace mob are a bunch of vocal civilians from many countries with little political clout. They are a minority opinion that no one listens to. It's hardly worth the effort.

    Just my 2 penneths worth.
  16. BloodSuckingGerbile Master of Puppets Registered Senior Member

    Sorry to disappoint you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. thed IT Gopher Registered Senior Member

    I think we can safely say that they completely fail in space. Something about it being a vacuum.
  18. tablariddim forexU2 Valued Senior Member

    I strongly protest, we should not pollute space with unsightly windmills, not only will they hinder our views of the stars but they'll probably blow all our satellites off course and THEN what're we gonna watch on TV? GOD! The mere thought of it all just makes me cringe!

    I say elastic band power is where its at! Just build a giant machine full of elastic bands, wind up the first band and as that unwinds it winds up the next one (through a series of gears) and so on--this machine will never stop, producing unlimited power! Let's call it a Wind Up Generator, or WUG for short. WUG power forever, yahman!
  19. Sublime Trigger Brains for Beginners. Registered Senior Member

    You say that nuclear power in space would be a major blow to civilistaion, either ours in the future, or aliens.

    Our own sun has a greater rate of (fusion/fission...I know the difference is huge but I forget which is which...) than any reactor we could ever create. How on earth...or space....could we possibly do any damage with out of atmosphere power sources?
  20. thed IT Gopher Registered Senior Member

    The difference is that the Sun uses Fusion and RTG's/conventional nuclear power sources use Fission. Fission processes produce long term radionucleitides that are very damaging to the environment. This is why international treaties ban their use in the atmosphere. Also, the Van Allen belts and Earth's magnetic field protect us from the Suns radiation, the solar wind.

    If a fission powered energy source where to malfunction in the atmosphere the results could be unpredictable. A 'rocket' using nuclear bombs as a lifter (as in Project Orion) will probably cause long term environmental problems. Think in terms of several hundred high yield A Bombs being detonated at varying heights for an hour. Repeat every time you want to put something in orbit.

    Edited to reverse Fusion and Fission. Minor brain fart occurred
  21. yales Banned Banned

    You guys just don't get it do you.

    Nuclear power is the most compact energy source we know how to control. The human race isn't mature enough to play around with such power. Maybe in a few centuries when war is a thing of the past. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    Something better will come along eventually. Fusion, antimatter, blackholes or something else we never even thought about yet. Even if we have to wait a century or two thats still better than going nuclear.
    Ok, sure, I admit that nuclear power might make space travel affordable to everyone but who is to say it can ever be made 100% safe. I would rather wait for something else. We've already seen progress in fusion research over the last 70 years. It can't be far away now. Better to stay on Earth anyway.
    Those nuclear nazi's are trying to get a movement going. They must be stopped. I have a vast legion of supporters working around the clock to close these anarchists down. Please help to support our cause. Wayne just wants to get hold of atomic weapons so he can take over the world. He banned me from his forum for merely speaking my mind. I hardly insulted him at all. He just can't handle the truth. All technology which can be used as a weapon MUST be banned. Good will triumph over evil.

    The argument that nuclear power is clean and creates no greenhouse gases is non valid. There is no definative proof of a greenhouse effect.
  22. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    I tend to disagree with you on several points yales.

    First your arguement that the site you pointed to is an indication that all nuclear power interest is dead is a poor one. You can not base your opinion on that as proof, just because it is a small site. That you were banned from the site may indicate that you are a radical for the Greenpeace movement and contrary to what they think. It sounds like you might have some hard feelings there for that. If you go into a pro area beating the drum for the con you must expect resistance to your ideas.

    Thed has alerted us to many that have invaded us to beat the drum for whatever cause that might inspire them to be kook's. It is apparent that your reputation preceeds you...

    My question at present is do we have the necessary time before we run out of resources to wait for however long it takes to come up with a new power source. There is no indication yet that it is just around the corner. You can not throw money at something and hope it will show up. Money can not purchase the innovative idea. Nor can it purchase new theories and concepts.

    A lot of the things you take for granted today and use were originally developed for war research and developement. The microwave oven is one. So beating the drum against things developed for war is not a useful idea either. No one said they can not be fashioned for good things even though their original use was horrid.

    I do not argue that radiation is a good thing in the form it comes from in a nuclear bomb. I am saying that there are uses for it and that we are in dire straights for power generation for the future use we will need. Applications are showing increases in the interests of nuclear power plants. Get used to the idea. It is coming.

    As far as it being used for a terrorist weapon, once someone learned how to fashion a bomb it is only a matter of time before others do to. You can not return the genie to the bottle once it is out. It means it is just a matter of time before such is learned by third world countries. The evidence that has been captured during the "War on Terrorism" already shows that terrorist are indeed researching such. Whether you like or not we will not be able to stop them from aquiring this info. I can give you a relativily easy way to obtain "radioactives" but will not post this on the boards.
  23. thed IT Gopher Registered Senior Member


    I for one am fully aware of your position. I also tend to agree with it. Fission based power is dirty, it leaves long time pollutants in the environment. As a graduate physicist myself, with some background in nuclear physics I am more than aware of this. Also, an old friend of mine is chief nuclear safety officer for the UK's largest atomic weapons research base. So yes, I do know a little of the topic.

    Lacking viable alternatives in the form of renewable power sources, nuclear power is a necessary evil. The number of wind farms necessary to replace one nuclear power station will undoubtedly cause unknown environmental damage.

    Indeed we should be aware of lunatics trying to acquire bomb grade material for nefarious puposes. But the lunatics to be careful of are state and multi-millionaire terrorist leaders, not security guards in Australian airports. If your concerns about the poster called Project_orion (aka Wayne, a security guard at an australian airport), nuclearspace and others are so great surely you should be contacting the CIA/FBI and Australian security forces. Not waging a private campaign to get him shut down.

    So you have a "vast legion of supporters working around the clock to close these anarchists down" and are recruiting new members obviously. How are a few people on the Everythingspace boards more effective at stopping this international threat to peace than the combined forces of the Western security forces? With these statements of yours you make Wayne sound like a member of the Axis of Evil and yourself the sole guardian of peace in the West. In doing so I can only come to the conclusion that you have entirely lost the plot.

    Perhaps a little history is in order about the history of Yales and Project_Orion. Early last year I joined the board hosted at At the time the poster called Yales was a valuable member of the community being very erudite, knowledgeable and lucid. Sometime last year a new poster appeared calling himself Project_Orion and championing the use of nuclear power for space flight. Yales was foremost, with a few others, in arguing the contrary point. Granted Yales was very polite, persistent and accurate. Project_orion was simply abusive. After several months of intense arguments the Uplink boards came under consistent attack in the form of people posting EMBEDded, HREF'ed and IMG'ed porn liinks plus randomly shuffling posts by posting frek to old threads. We never found the perpetrator but Project_Orion was a prime suspect, he was banned. As a result many HTML tages where banned and moderators appointed. Some order was returned.

    At the time the uplink boards where hosted on a dodgy server and access was random at best. Also, a cult of personalities was beng set up with an unofficial board police monitoring things. This was manifested as a role play of the WAN Bozo Fleet coming under attack. A poster called Orstio set up the Everythingspace boards on and several other posters moved to those boards, including Yales and others involved in this role play. Project_orion set up a Club at Yahoo Clubs, Yales continued his argument over nuclear space on those boards. Again, granted, the nuclear space crowd where vicious to their opponents. A nuclear space outcasts club was set up. Further spam attacks to occurred and the nuclear space club was also attacked. Eventually the nuclear space club was shutdown by Yahoo due to bad behaviour. The set up shop on ezboards, along side the everythingspace crowd. The argument between Yales and Project_orion continued to get more and more acrimonious. Project_orion in his inimitable style banned Yales several times resulting in Yales creating new avatars, according to him.

    More recently Yales got the original mod and creator of nuclear space to unban him. For some reason this person was not Project_Orion. The arguments continued no doubt. Throughout all of this Yales was been persistently polite and knowledgeable and Project_orion very abusive and obviously has a problem with anger management.

    Now we are here and Yales is obviously looking to recruit people to the cause. Sorry me old MegaLipidCephaloid but the ongoing argument between you and Wayne is being fuelled by two diametrically opposing views and two obsessive people.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page