looks like fun

It's something would should invest in and to start using. The plants we build today would be far safer and more efficient then the ones before them. Besides being cleaner they would be safer than coal simply because there's less chemicals or whatever with them. For vehicles we should have them powering things like trains and other civilian vehicles. That would work because during the 60's we were experimenting with a nuclear powered airplane. Now we have the tech to make that work for a train. A nuclear powered train would be nothing more than a modern steam engine. The coal car would be the reactor and the locomotive would be the engine. 

Quote from: SuperIrish on November 12, 2014, 05:06:02 PM

This is one of the only things that annoys me about the leftist parties here. I agree with almost totally when it comes to the Green Party, but for some damned reason they hate nuclear so much that it's beyond ridiculous.

In the same sense that the business republicans have to placate its religious base so they have votes, the Green Party does the same for its hippie base. I used to be opposed to nuclear power because I was told it was harmful, but I'm not entirely sure that's actually the case, at least not with the technological advancements of modern power plants (essentially I couldn't find any research that nuclear power had any serious drawbacks).

Ideally (but this is far in the future) we'd harness energy from solar panels in orbit around the sound and that way we wouldn't have to worry about where to put nuclear waste. Or maybe it would be better to convert heat energy into higher dense forms so we're at least recycling the energy, but I don't even know the basics of thermodynamics so I'm just going to stop that line of thought right there.

This is probably how we'll get energy to earth and surrounding stations, etc. in the coming centuries, should we last that long. Although this would have to wait until we have at least a pretty decent foothold in space.

Even then when operations move deeper into space nuclear will become more efficient.

Quote from: SexyPiranha on November 14, 2014, 10:10:20 PM

Quote from: Dustin on November 14, 2014, 08:06:55 PM

Quote from: SuperIrish on November 12, 2014, 05:06:02 PM

This is one of the only things that annoys me about the leftist parties here. I agree with almost totally when it comes to the Green Party, but for some damned reason they hate nuclear so much that it's beyond ridiculous.

In the same sense that the business republicans have to placate its religious base so they have votes, the Green Party does the same for its hippie base. I used to be opposed to nuclear power because I was told it was harmful, but I'm not entirely sure that's actually the case, at least not with the technological advancements of modern power plants (essentially I couldn't find any research that nuclear power had any serious drawbacks).

Ideally (but this is far in the future) we'd harness energy from solar panels in orbit around the sound and that way we wouldn't have to worry about where to put nuclear waste. Or maybe it would be better to convert heat energy into higher dense forms so we're at least recycling the energy, but I don't even know the basics of thermodynamics so I'm just going to stop that line of thought right there.

This is probably how we'll get energy to earth and surrounding stations, etc. in the coming centuries, should we last that long. Although this would have to wait until we have at least a pretty decent foothold in space.

Even then when operations move deeper into space nuclear will become more efficient.

Well if you put the nuclear reactors in space then there's no longer an issue of where to put the nuclear waste (aim it at the Sun). But there's a proximity to the Sun where it becomes more energy efficient to use solar instead of nuclear.

Yeah I was basically saying the reverse. When you get a certain distance out there solar kind of loses the efficiency it had before, especially w/ a large operation that needs a lot of energy.

Quote from: SexyPiranha on November 14, 2014, 10:17:40 PM

Quote from: Dustin on November 14, 2014, 10:14:38 PM

Quote from: SexyPiranha on November 14, 2014, 10:10:20 PM

Quote from: Dustin on November 14, 2014, 08:06:55 PM

Quote from: SuperIrish on November 12, 2014, 05:06:02 PM

This is one of the only things that annoys me about the leftist parties here. I agree with almost totally when it comes to the Green Party, but for some damned reason they hate nuclear so much that it's beyond ridiculous.

In the same sense that the business republicans have to placate its religious base so they have votes, the Green Party does the same for its hippie base. I used to be opposed to nuclear power because I was told it was harmful, but I'm not entirely sure that's actually the case, at least not with the technological advancements of modern power plants (essentially I couldn't find any research that nuclear power had any serious drawbacks).

Ideally (but this is far in the future) we'd harness energy from solar panels in orbit around the sound and that way we wouldn't have to worry about where to put nuclear waste. Or maybe it would be better to convert heat energy into higher dense forms so we're at least recycling the energy, but I don't even know the basics of thermodynamics so I'm just going to stop that line of thought right there.

This is probably how we'll get energy to earth and surrounding stations, etc. in the coming centuries, should we last that long. Although this would have to wait until we have at least a pretty decent foothold in space.

Even then when operations move deeper into space nuclear will become more efficient.

Well if you put the nuclear reactors in space then there's no longer an issue of where to put the nuclear waste (aim it at the Sun). But there's a proximity to the Sun where it becomes more energy efficient to use solar instead of nuclear.

Yeah I was basically saying the reverse. When you get a certain distance out there solar kind of loses the efficiency it had before, especially w/ a large operation that needs a lot of energy.

Aren't the heaviest elements closest to the Sun though? I don't see the point in deep space mining.

Well yeah for the most part. Mercury would be rich in them for example, good luck trying to mine that place though.

The gas giants though would be a great source of hydrogen and it's isotopes(for fusion and other uses), their moons, the asteroid belt and such bodies also contain lots of untapped resources, iron, carbon, even water.

Even out at the distance of the belt you'd have to consider the size of the operation you wanna run which plays into how much energy it would need. The extent of the solar array you'd need would play a major role in deciding whether or not you use solar power.

This is off the top of my head though, I may sit down tomorrow and do some calculations if I get the chance.