Dragon Ball Z Uncensored

[Stupid Fucking Faggot]

I think it would be neat if everyone in the world agreed to try Theldorrin's ideas for a one year trial period, and then at that point assess where things stood.

[Theldorrin]

That would be pretty awesome.
_________________
@}-,-'- *~*~* Member of the FTU Elegant Tea Party Society *~*~* -'-,-{@

[Servbot]

We'd have flying cars and mecha in that time span.

[Action Hank]

assess vs. asses

[YES]

Yes, thel, but the irony was more subsidies were demanded after achieving record profits. Thats asshole, but its still a profitable energy source

[Theldorrin]

Of course it's profitable for the people receiving the subsidies. Duh.
_________________
@}-,-'- *~*~* Member of the FTU Elegant Tea Party Society *~*~* -'-,-{@

[YES]

Sometimes I like to pretend you are intelligent before I debate you

[Big Fagot]

I'm not sure how many angles to attack this from.

A) Solar and wind energy do not allow for storage of energy in the same way that having a bunch of petroleum or coal or plutonium you can burn does. You can't throw another log on the fire on a cloudy or still day. In nothing like any form that exists can wind or solar power fix our energy problems.

B) Hydroelectric power fucks up rivers by creating artificial lakes and grinding up fish and shit (I don't know if they actually grind up fish but I just thought of that and that bullshit argument is going to be a million times more effective than anything actually true which no one will listen to.)

C) Lay-enemies of nuclear power usually resort to a rejection of the notion of probability when backed into a corner and insist that even a 5% possibility of one additional case of cancer in the next million years is unacceptable (could you tell that person they didn't matter and then pull the trigger?) Taking that tack, coal is also radioactive, being potentially mined near radioactive ores.

D) Oh, also, the difference between the number of deaths caused by coal is not in the same solar system as the deaths caused by properly operated nuclear power plants.

E) Nuclear waste is solid, not liquid. Anyone who thinks of liquid waste should be ashamed for having spoken. The process is called vitrification, and it turns sludge into massive chunks of metal which cannot be dispersed into drinking water any more than a bronze statue can.

F) Jesus

G) Even though some body of oversight considers Yucca Mountain on a 1 million year time scale for some obscure reason, in reality, after 200 years it wouldn't even pose a danger if it were in your living room.

H) PS, here's some general knowledge that seems to be in short supply: things with very long half lives are less dangerous, not more! Isotopes that decay in six hours blast out all their harmful energy in that period of time. Nuclear waste is more like a glacier than a blizzard in this respect. It could still kill you if you eat pellets of it daily, though. I can be bothered to go produce these calculations, but I get the feeling that we don't have any members here who are THAT irrational. Maybe Theldorrin arguing con, or Jason, or Outland.

I) In general, in response to our parents' Cuban Missile Crisis nukes = duck and cover = bad generation, the safety factors for nuclear power and waste are preposterously redundant. Enormous pains are taken to make sure that the maximum worst case dosage is a tiny fraction of the radiation you get from being alive.

If I'm going to get trolled I'll go find hard arguments and crush everyone except Theldorrin easily, and he's already foolishly chosen the correct side. Nuclear power as it exists currently is absolutely the savior of humanity.

[Theldorrin]

Nuclear fission is one of those subjects that I reused for half a dozen different school projects.

The only real criticisms come from people that are opposed to energy use at all. Although they're usually against it because they have romantic notions of the past, and not because they worry about entropy destroying the Universe or anything like that.
_________________
@}-,-'- *~*~* Member of the FTU Elegant Tea Party Society *~*~* -'-,-{@

[YES]

We can use anti-matter for our power, but like nuclear fission, it isnt cost-efficient

So, lets take the middle ground of using clean but atomic power and start subsidizing anti-matter plants

[Theldorrin]

Fission is extremely cost efficient, since energy is expensive in general.

It's much, much cheaper than oil or coal.

In saying that oil or coal is cheaper, you have to ignore all of hidden costs. Those hidden costs are being subsidized by society.

It's like in the Gods Themselves. The Electron Pump seemed like a perfect energy source, but in reality it was very expensive, because it was increasing the strong nuclear force which would cause the Sun to nova much earlier than it normally would.
_________________
@}-,-'- *~*~* Member of the FTU Elegant Tea Party Society *~*~* -'-,-{@

[Stupid Fucking Faggot]

Well, it may not be Bonnie Raitt, but somewhere there's a person who knows as much or more about this stuff as you guys, and he believes that nuclear power is dangerous/bad/unfeasible, and he could competently and convincingly argue against each of your points, and if that weren't true, then there would be no debate and we'd simply use nuclear power.

[Stupid Fucking Faggot]

[FancyMichael]

I thought the next big power source thingy was going to be massive satellites with solar panels.

I guess I could be wrong!

[Servbot]

How would something floating around in space be able to transfer its power to us exactly Mike?

[FancyMichael]

I know that you were so desperate to make a scathing comment that you didn't bother to use google, which would have provided you with a wealth of information by the way, so here, I'll help you out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite

[FancyMichael]

I'm so unbelievably upset about this, which is amazing because the only reason I posted about this initially was because I read a brief article at cnn a few weeks ago about solar power and satellites.

[Servbot]

So it's science-fiction. I get it.

[FancyMichael]

I'm not really sure, but what I'd like to know is if there is a hyphen in science fiction.

[FancyMichael]

Once you have selected a style for a given compound word, however, it is essential that you use the form consistently within the body of that particular piece of writing. It will not do, for example, to write "science-fiction writers" in one paragraph, and then write "science fiction writers" two or three paragraphs later.

Of course, it would be perfectly acceptable to write "science-fiction writers," and then write "science fiction" later in the same piece, because in the first instance "science-fiction" is a compound adjective modifying the noun "writers," whereas in the second, the compound consists of the adjective "science" modifying the noun "fiction." Because the grammatical structures are different, they are not governed by the same rule of usage.

You're locked into Science-Fiction now.