Difference between revisions of "Talk:Nuclear"
(→Nuclear fuel: new section) |
(→Nuclear fuel) |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Do you think, that is possible just to buy nuclear fuel for such needs? AFAIK it was quite difficult for Iraq government to get nuclear fuel for their nuclear plaint.. | Do you think, that is possible just to buy nuclear fuel for such needs? AFAIK it was quite difficult for Iraq government to get nuclear fuel for their nuclear plaint.. | ||
+ | :That's one of the best reasons why nuclear fuel will almost certainly be useless. [[User:Joep|Joep]] 00:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
+ | ::Iraq was a horrible dictatorship with a history of invading other countries and using chemical weapons. And AFAIK they didn´t allow a whole lot of inspections from the IAEA. A seastead is as innocent as a newborn baby and could easily provide full access to inspectors. ;-) | ||
+ | |||
+ | ::That is not to say that it will be easy to get hold of fuel without incurring the wrath of the powers that be, but that is no reason not to investigate the issue and try.--[[User:Vtoldude|Vtoldude]] 19:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 19:27, 13 November 2008
Disadvantages
Although nuclear power has a lot of advantages, we need to keep in mind that Seastead will have to be near existing countries, at least in the beginning. Countries probably don't mind a cruise ship kind of operation in their vincinity, but both governments and the public will mind a vessel carrying "scary stuff" and take appropriate action. Although nuclear options may be very cheap and eco-friendly, it is probably better suited for spaceships instead of humble seasteads.
There are many more ways to get energy, and Seastead is an extremely good place to experiment with alternative energy sources like algae since "land" can be made easy. To get things going, focussing on technology that is easy to obtain and to use is probably the best and only way to go.
-I don´t think anyone is seriously suggesting that we fire up a nuclear reactor in the San Fransisco Bay or close to any other countries. I strongly think it´s a realistic alternative for full size seasteads on the high seas however. After all, there are nuclear powerplants all over the world today, even in large vessels. It´s a proven technology that compares favorably against pretty much anything else. The biggest obstacle is political, and seeing as the whole point of seasteading is to get rid of political obstacles I´d say nuclear power fits like a glove. By the way this kind of discussion probably belongs on the talk page. -vtoldude
Nuclear fuel
Do you think, that is possible just to buy nuclear fuel for such needs? AFAIK it was quite difficult for Iraq government to get nuclear fuel for their nuclear plaint..
- That's one of the best reasons why nuclear fuel will almost certainly be useless. Joep 00:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Iraq was a horrible dictatorship with a history of invading other countries and using chemical weapons. And AFAIK they didn´t allow a whole lot of inspections from the IAEA. A seastead is as innocent as a newborn baby and could easily provide full access to inspectors. ;-)
- That is not to say that it will be easy to get hold of fuel without incurring the wrath of the powers that be, but that is no reason not to investigate the issue and try.--Vtoldude 19:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)