We use cookies to ensure the best experience for you on our website. By using this website you accept our use of cookies. Ok Read more

Los Santos Roleplay Cops and Robbers
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Information
    • Beginners Tutorial
    • Server Rules
    • Privacy Policy
    • Server Map
  • Statistics
    • Top 25
    • Most Active
    • Server Stats
    • Top Score
    • Groups
    • Turf Stats
  • UCP
    • Dashboard
    • Profile
    • Messaging
    • Houses
    • Vehicles
    • Donation Items
    • Transfers
    • Tag Area
    • Support
    • Logs
  • Shop
    • Shop page
    • Donation items
    • Wearables
    • Memberships
    • Vehicle Addons
    • Vehicles
    • Houses
    • Apartments
    • Groups
    • Get Points
  • Donate
  • Game (UCP) Sign in
Lsrcr Forum • Hydroelectricity or Nuclear energy?

Lsrcr Forum

Los Santos Roleplay Cops and Robbers
https://ls-rcr.com/forum/

Hydroelectricity or Nuclear energy?

https://ls-rcr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12042

Page 1 of 3

Hydroelectricity or Nuclear energy?

Posted: November 23, 2011, 1:58 pm
by Cheese
Which do you prefer, and why?

Re: Hydroelectricity or Nuclear energy?

Posted: November 23, 2011, 2:16 pm
by Cocasquash
Hydroelectricity.
Maybe Nuclear energy is the best if you think about clean energy but on the other side nuclear energy plants can also make a hell of damages to people and the earth.
Example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_ ... r_disaster

Also I'm not 100% sure, but I guess that in the area where the Chernobyl disaster happened people can't move back yet because of the high amount of radiation.

Re: Hydroelectricity or Nuclear energy?

Posted: November 23, 2011, 2:26 pm
by Cheese
[Lsrcr]Cocasquash wrote:
Hydroelectricity.
Maybe Nuclear energy is the best if you think about clean energy but on the other side nuclear energy plants can also make a hell of damages to people and the earth.
Example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_ ... r_disaster

Also I'm not 100% sure, but I guess that in the area where the Chernobyl disaster happened people can't move back yet because of the high amount of radiation.
True.

BUT, just a small amount of radiation is actually good for your health.

Since radiation = came from the sun = more Vitamin D

And yes, nuclear energy can help produce more oxygen thru photosynthesis

Re: Hydroelectricity or Nuclear energy?

Posted: November 23, 2011, 3:00 pm
by Mitk0
The accident in Chernobyl didn't happened because of the nuclear energy it self, it was because of poor judgement on the side of the management. Not sure if you're familiar with the story, but at that time the Americans launched successfully their nuclear power plant so the USSR didn't wanted to fall behind and they boosted their nuclear power plant at full capacity disregarding the specialist's advices not to.

Regarding the subject, Hydroelectricity cannot even compare to the amount of energy the nuclear materials emit. Yeah, it's risky. So is driving a car, flying a plane, swimming and so on. As long as control is maintained in the nuclear power plants, the chance of something going wrong is very little.

On a side note, an interesting fact: Some rich dude had hundreds in hotels in the USA so he decided to make a hotel in space using nuclear energy as a power source. His space hotel project is worth 50 billion US dollars and a ticket for his hotel would cost 2 million when he finishes the construction.

Re: Hydroelectricity or Nuclear energy?

Posted: November 23, 2011, 3:26 pm
by Cocasquash
Mitk0 wrote:
The accident in Chernobyl didn't happened because of the nuclear energy it self, it was because of poor judgement on the side of the management. Not sure if you're familiar with the story, but at that time the Americans launched successfully their nuclear power plant so the USSR didn't wanted to fall behind and they boosted their nuclear power plant at full capacity disregarding the specialist's advices not to.

Regarding the subject, Hydroelectricity cannot even compare to the amount of energy the nuclear materials emit. Yeah, it's risky. So is driving a car, flying a plane, swimming and so on. As long as control is maintained in the nuclear power plants, the chance of something going wrong is very little.

On a side note, an interesting fact: Some rich dude had hundreds in hotels in the USA so he decided to make a hotel in space using nuclear energy as a power source. His space hotel project is worth 50 billion US dollars and a ticket for his hotel would cost 2 million when he finishes the construction.
I knew that about Chernobyl, but about that american guy with the hotels were very interresting. You just learned me something new, but you are right. If we can handle nuclear power with the right safety and employers to watch it nuclear are very good energy source for us.

Re: Hydroelectricity or Nuclear energy?

Posted: November 23, 2011, 3:29 pm
by Cheese
The only thing wrong with nuclear powerplants is that terrorists will use it to threaten the government.

Re: Hydroelectricity or Nuclear energy?

Posted: November 23, 2011, 4:01 pm
by Cocasquash
Cheese wrote:
The only thing wrong with nuclear powerplants is that terrorists will use it to threaten the government.
Ohh man that would not only kill a lot of people in the country, but could also spread to more country if the nuclear plant is close to the border. I will not even think of how much damage such a terrorist attack could cost in lives.

Re: Hydroelectricity or Nuclear energy?

Posted: November 23, 2011, 4:04 pm
by Cheese
So first we get rid of insane people, then implicate nuclear energy.

Re: Hydroelectricity or Nuclear energy?

Posted: November 23, 2011, 4:23 pm
by Mitk0
Yeah cause if you're a terrorist you can get near a nuclear power plant.

Re: Hydroelectricity or Nuclear energy?

Posted: November 23, 2011, 4:34 pm
by Moose
Solar energy.

All times are UTC
Page 1 of 3
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/