Rave_Grip

So people, which one do you think is more effective, safe, better and capable for human purposes?

Tell us why do you think either Nuclear Energy or Thermal Energy Plants are more resourceful.

I prefer Nuclear energy, as it creates zero pollution, more energy and is very helpful for human use. As compared to Thermal Energy Plants, they produce more smoke compared and pollution as compared to Nuclear plants.

Or if you think Thermal Energy Plants are better, tell us why, and support your answer ^_^

Thank you.

__________________

I tried.
| .:~My AO Gallery~:. | | .:~The AO Rules~:. |

SousukeSagara

I picked the Thermal Energy as more resourceful.....
I prefered that Thermal Energy is more safer than Nuclear Energy, but Im saying that Thermal energy makes pollution because of smokes..... But if the Nuclear Energy is not stable at all, it will explodes and destroys millions of factories that costs billions.....(More polluted smoke too.....) But If the atmosphere is too hot.....
It may create forests fires and destroy also millions of resources..... More smokes too..... Nuclear Energy is very useful for us right now, but if these energy ends up(because its limited)..... What will happen to us....? Thermal Energy is the first one we used in trains, boats, etc..... Whew..... Too hard to explain......

__________________

ketaro

Ok both type of energy has a negative way. In nuclear energy radiation can be possible if the nuclear plant explotes. Thermal energy as you said creates pollution wich will destroy the ozone layer. I would say nuclear energy because it is clean and it is more cheaper to produce.

Hold.Me.X.Thrill.Me

I picked nuclear energy since it is cleaner than thermal energy..although it will take years to build the nuclear plants and it isn't that safe. But thermal energy is wearing away the ozone layer so in that sense nuclear is safer.

__________________

TY Sasurai for the lovely sig!*

dude101

i have to say but i think thermal is better. yes it pollutes the atmosphere and cases global warming..

but the waste from nuclear power plants take yrs to loss it radioactivity. and do u know exactly how they dispose this nuclear waste, they put in boxes. and who to say that the boxes will remain intacked for the yrs it will take to the waste to loss its radio activity.

ketaro

yeah it takes hundreds of years for those wastes to lose radio activity.

Rave_Grip

Nuclear leaks or accidents are atypical, it happens if the company / workers are very careless. The leak can be stopped but if it is not in time, damages will be obviously caused.

__________________

I tried.
| .:~My AO Gallery~:. | | .:~The AO Rules~:. |

HibikiLink

both are a double edged sword. While thermal energy is safe it is continuously destroying our atmoshpere which is bad. How ever in comparison to nuclear power while I might be better for the environment I believe the risks are just to great. You just have to look what happened in Europe to know that it is a bad idea. In my opinion we should all go solar power

__________________
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/1...icsclanhf5.gif[x/img]
(just remove the "x" from the [x/img] tag!

Joshua001

I pick solar, hydro and wind power as the best methods of generating power. Though I always wondered why they never tried to do a thermal power plant off of a volcano you would thing the earths core is one huge heat source.

HibikiLink

ahh a very good point. There are so many natural ways to power this world without having to destroy it aswell, wind, water, sun etc etc it's all good

__________________
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/1...icsclanhf5.gif[x/img]
(just remove the "x" from the [x/img] tag!

Joshua001

you may all find this wied but the question about the volcano came from a episode of Captian Planet. Its wierd what comes to mind from reading forms.